LOLWUT?

If the US has learned anything from history, they would realize that to remain a superpower they have to behave ethically. Failure to do so will lead to downfall and collapse (ref. Roman Empire, British Empire, etc.)

I’m no expert, but what’s keeping the US from inserting a trigger that on specific radar impulses will cause the receiving aircraft like a British F-35 to shut down, switch off arms, take a dive, eject the pilot, etc., with those radar impulses being sent by a radar function in the US F-35? Or employ the radar and closed-source RWR to issue any other command?

Ethics?

The most common figure is 3750 km because :
– That’s the figure stated on Dassault’s website, but not for ferry range (3750 km = ~1000 nm, given for the combat radius on a penetration mission).

I have seen ferry range of more than 4500 km for the NG (but that’s unofficial, and sorry I cannot tell you the source — I just love to say that :D).

Anyway; clearly if a country wants a plane mainly for deep strike missions Rafale is a better choice. However for most missions the NG will be able to complete the mission as well as Rafale (in particular if you consider the neighbourhood of Brazil, it’s not like they are facing China or Russia…)

And again, Gripen can do quite long missions if you just optimize the number of munitions carried. So if say, 95% of the missions can be completed successfully by both Rafale and Gripen, for the remaining 5% you simply send more Gripen than you would for Rafale.

Single-engine fighters like F16, Mirage etc have always outsold bigger heavier like F18, SH, and F15. There is a reason, and the reason is simply that most countries don’t need to go for the bigger heavier and more expensive since a smaller single-engine will do. So the question then is what are the requirements for Brazil? Not that it necessarily matters for the outcome, it seems that the political considerations will be the most important here.

Rafale is a great plane, IMHO one of the best twin-engine 4.5 gen fighters out there (although there are some important things still missing like HMD etc).

NG will be (if somebody orders it) a great light-weight single-engine 4.5 fighter with some amazing capabilities normally only associated with much larger, heavier and more expensive planes. 😎

I hate StrategyPage. 😉

What I’m reacting to is the claims that suddenly the Gripen is now a match for fighters like the Rafale and Typhoon, which have several very obvious advantages related to their size, not least of which is their superior payload, higher T/W, CFT capability, and semi-recessed AAMs (the last of which is IMHO a very big deal).

Also consider the starting point: the Gripen A/C’s dynamic performance is said to be slightly inferior to an F-16. Now suddenly the Gripen NG, with 5% more weight and worse wing loading, but 20% more thrust is supposed to be competitive with the Rafale and Typhoon?

Plus consider the investments in electronics and stealth, which are an order of magnitude larger for Rafale & Typhoon than for Gripen.

What’s clear to me is that SAAB has done a fantastic marketing job. IMHO, they’ve got a bit of a Boeing/EADs syndrome going on, and are going to have a hard time delivering. Call me skeptical if you want to…

The avionics is something Saab has worked on for many years already. Also they have one huge “economical” advantage compared to Dassault in that they collaborate freely with other companies; they find the best and cheapest vendors and collaborators: GE for the engine (one single F414 costs dramatically less than two Rafale M88 engines…) Selex for the AESA, etc. etc.

The disadvantage of that is of course political, and that’s what we may see in some competitions.

I think you are plain wrong to state that investements in Rafale is “order of magnitude larger” than investments in Gripen. It’s just that the Gripen investment has been spread across more companies, more units produced (again the F414 is an excellent example) and more countries…

Are you sure that Thales has invested more in AESA development than the combined AESA investments by Saab and Selex, for instance?

– How will Gripen have a lower RCS than Rafale/Typhoon without recessed AAMs and with an external IRST hanging from the fuselage, and with an airframe whose original design pre-dates stealth calculations?

Nobody has said that Gripen will have lower RCS than Rafale/Typhoon.

I just stated what is known about Gripen RCS; For the A version it’s 0.1m2. How much lower it is for C and NG we don’t know.

And you don’t know what it is for Rafale.

Who cares? Both are nice a/c and both are 4.5 gen machines that will dramatically increase RCS when weapons and pods and drop tanks etc. are added.

I suggest you visit Strategypage :diablo:

I think you would enjoy the Rafale discussion there much more….

Save that they could rent a plane (I can think of a lot of available Gripens) as a transitory measure that would cost much less that purchasing such an expensive stopgap.

Nic

I think they actually have the option to return the SH to the US if they are not too old and worn out? Although I have no idea aboutthe details of that arrangement.

– The 1,000km per 1,700L drop tank figure implies a fuel consumption of 1.7kg/km, which is about the same as a clean Gripen NG, which is highly unlikely given the extra weight & drag, and certainly doesn’t work once you have 2-4 drop tanks. Honestly, this makes a lot of SAAB’s marketing numbers smell slightly suspicious.

Well if you believe the suprecruise claim then it actually fits with a fuel consumption of 1.7kg/km with one drop tank.

They have said a second drop tank adds 750 km. it all adds up me thinks.

And we do know that the 1300 km + 30 min on-station was with one drop tank.

The 4075 km max ferry range figure however is rather “dubious” — the real figure is higher than that… 😎