Everything required to bridge the gap with its larger siblings – increased payload, increased range, AESA, GaN-based EW system, sensor fusion, IRST etc.

Ah, OK I think I understand what you are trying to say… you talk about the Gripen E development program… (the way you phrased it, it sounded like the Gripen E would be in urgent need for upgrades!)

India again is a very long shot. They’ve already got two types of cost-effective workhorses in the Tejas and Su-30MKI. The govt. will find it hard to justify a Gripen E acquisition without some sort of competition (SH? Viper?), which will inevitably take years to finalize (MMRCA redux), and is therefore something they’ll want to avoid. The only aircraft that they can justify as a single-vendor purchase is ironically the F-35 itself, offering capabilities (read: stealth) not currently available from other sources.

I believe the IAF wanted Tejas mk2, not the current mk1; now they are forced to accept mk1a which does not really meet their requirements but they have no choice. Tejas mk2 will take much longer to develop than Gripen E.

They have already made it clear that they are assessing different options. Since they go for goverment-to-government deals they don’t have to arrange competitions. They want a Western bird so MiG-35 is out; Rafale was too expensive so it’s out; the same is Typhoon. After the latest sales of F-16 to Pakistan, the F-16 is also out.

That leaves the SH and Gripen NG… Let’s wait and see what happens!

I think that has been said in the other Gripen threads as well. I believe spitfire say before Dutch were smart to be weary, and given changes to the aircraft itself that was prudent.

I am curious about the cost to because i have heard Brazil cost is because of factory, but Swiss deal looked to be roughly the same and there was no plan for a factory?

There are many factors influenzing the price, including:

* exchange rates
* the amount of ToT
* the amount of offsets
* the specific configuration
* the amount of support included in the deal
* the amount of spares

In addition I wonder if the terms of the Swiss deal were negotiated before Brazil announced they were going to go for Gripen; if so, then I would assume that the contract for the 22 Swiss included quite a lot of R&D costs for Gripen, since Switzerland and Sweden would then basically have to cover the R&D costs.

There is one but it is only used for training the pilots for international missions. It’s not used in the daily activities of the air force. This is unlikely to change in the future.

My thinking was that if you were to have a credible defence alliance with Finland perhaps you would need a couple of tankers — after all Sweden-Finland covers a quite large land and sea area, and although the Gripen is long-legged in an a2a config, for e.g. an a2g config the range will drop quite a lot.

Imagine if Finnish Gripen are to support defending south of Sweden; or that Sweden needs to support North East of Finland.

I believe Sweden uses a C130H as a tanker? I may be wrong.

does any of the scandinavian nations operate tankers ?

Sweden operates a tanker. Norway has access to tankers through NATO.

The F35 thrust to weight ratio is too low and the wing too small to permit tactics used with F22s.

The Russians have been developing L-band radar, which reports suggest can detect a stealth fighter up to 169km away. Stealth was the great technological leap in air combat: the F117 Night Hawk of 1983 made an impressive debut in Baghdad.

But advances in technology are eating into its advantages. The F35 is also supposed to be stealthy, except when it is carrying external weapons. Reports suggest the Russian infra-red search and track will detect a F35 at 32km.

The latest Sukhoi Flanker derivative Su35 — with its thrust-vectoring super manoeuvrability — renders obsolete conventional Western fourth-generation fighters that rely on aerodynamic manoeuvring.

Also, the larger even more powerful Sukhoi PAK FA 50 is close to production.

Simulations show an F22 can shoot down two Su35s. One Su35 can shoot down 2.4 F35s. And one Su35 can shoot down eight F18 Super Hornets.

In air combat, most missiles miss due to the high and near instantaneous turn rate that modern fighters are capable of. But the F35 performs poorly at such manoeuvres.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/f35-already-behind-as-russia-leads-arms-race/news-story/1eae5192a7ac96c37a9b0a6a2e6bae8c

I respectfully disagree with this old pilot on a number of different things… F-35 is probably the best choice for Australia.

What simulations is he referring to!?

Last October, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon asked US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to provide Israel with a new squadron of F-15s that Israel would outfit with its own electronics systems. Carter reportedly rejected that request as well as one for bunker buster bombs.

Carter instead insisted that Israel use the supplemental aid to purchase more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, US-made missile defense systems, and the Osprey V-22 helicopter, which Ya’alon didn’t want.

The fact that the administration wants Israel to buy more F-35s instead of F-15s is alarming both for what it tells us about America’s commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge against Iran and for what it tells us about the F-35, which is set to become the IAF’s next generation combat fighter.

By all accounts, the F-35 is an impressive next generation fighter. But at the same time, as Aaron Lerner from IMRA news aggregation service noted this week, the F-35 suffers from one major weakness that arguably cancels out all of its advantages. That weakness is the F-35’s operational dependence on software laboratories and logistics support computers located in the US.

In a manner that recalls Apple’s ability to exert perpetual control over all iPhones by making it impossible for them to long function without periodically updating their operating systems, the US has made it impossible for foreign governments to simply purchase F-35s and use them as they see fit.

As Defense-Aerospace.com reported last November, “All F-35 aircraft operating across the world will have to update their mission data files and their Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS) profiles before and after every sortie, to ensure that on-board systems are programmed with the latest available operational data and that ALIS is kept permanently informed of each aircraft’s technical status and maintenance requirements.

“ALIS can, and has, prevented aircraft taking off because of an incomplete data file,” the report revealed.

Given the F-35’s dependence on the Internet, such an attack, while directed at the US itself, would also ground the IAF’s main combat fighter.

The second reason the F-35’s continuous dependence on a US-based logistics system is a critical weakness is that it would be irresponsible of Israel to trust that the US will not abuse its power to undermine and block IAF operations.

This brings us back to the Pentagon’s insistence that Israel purchase only F-35s and missile defense systems. By giving Israel no option other than purchasing more F-35s, which the Americans control – to the point of being able to ground – even after they are deployed by the IAF, and defensive systems jointly developed with the US and built in the US, the Americans are hollowing out Israel’s ability to operate independently.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/COLUMN-ONE-The-IAFs-Achilles-heel-444662