What is very interesting for me is, that most people seem to assume that the Gripen NG will not be more expensive than the current C/Ds. Honestly I have serious doubts about that.

All we have to go by is the SAAB offers to Norway and Denmark. And those were not more expensive then the C/Ds that were sold before IIRC.

IIRC (again) SAAB even promised the Gripen to be at half the price of the F-35. A pretty bold statement and I don´t think SAAB wants to sell aircrafts and loosing money on every sale. That would be a pretty strange way to conduct business, it´s not like the company is a local grocery store in Zimbabwe.

The initial operational clearance is slated for 2010 end but besides the engine issue, the LCA is facing problems on two other fronts — the angle of attack and the landing gear. While the angle of attack achieved by LCA is 17 degrees, the IAF wants it to be 21.

Just consider that the F-16 and F-15 have AoA higher than 21 degrees

With the F-16A the AoA limit is 25deg where as the MiG-29 has been cleared of an AoA of up to 45deg.

The J-10 very likely has a AoA limit like the JAS-39

*Gripen has an AOA of 50 deg. as a practice limit. That seems high compared to LCAs goal of 21. In the 1996 flight tests however the Gripen could do 110 deg. alpha. and still retain controllability. How is that possible, should´nt the aircraft be leaning backwards then?
Do you know the AOA numbers of other fighter aircrafts?

*http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/

Tests up to an alpha of 28 degrees were concluded with the standard flight control software release which has a preliminary alpha limit of 20 degrees, above which it returns the aircraft to 20 degrees or less.

The second phase with flights up to 55 degrees alpha were conducted with a software release without any alpha limit. The third phase went beyond that, to 110 degrees alpha, while retaining controllability.

It’s expected that the final alpha limit will be in the region of 50 degrees.

The Manoeuver Load Limiter will let the pilots give full stick and rudder commands at all times, but by taking into account the present weight, what kinds of external loads are carried, speed, altitude and other data in order to obtain maximum performance enabling the pilots to concentrate on the tactical situation.

BTW, a couple of sweet Viggen pics that clearly shows the cranked delta. The first one is from 1967 testflights and the 2nd one is wallpaper material 🙂

I can not understand why so many insists on comparing the Tejas with Gripen (or T-50) just because they happen to be single-engined, light weight airplanes. They are two different fighters, with different designs, manufacturers, engines, origins of country etc.

Last year a small trivia report from the SwAF was released. It contained a small summarize about the Gripen performance after 10 years in service versus the required specifications from the Swedish MoD when they ordered the Gripen. Despite all wind-tunnel testings and advanced computers in the world you can´t truly see how an aircraft performs until you have up and flying.
With the Gripen they found out that it had at least 10% less drag then anticipated, this off course affected things like fuel-consumption, range etc (in a positive way).
Here´s a list of different categories and the results over the years. (100% is the required specifications from MoD, over 100% is positive, below is negative)
– Take off runway: 128%
– Landing, slippery runway: 117%
– Range, reconnaissance missions: 152%
– Range, attack missions: 147%
– Range, fighter missions: 147%
– Turning rate: 105%
– Radar range, against air targets: 115-140%
– Radar range, against surface targets: 120%
– Accuracy of radar: 150%

I would guess that in some points the results were not so good but these are the only one that was listed. Specially in the points about range where the Gripen exceeded its expectations by so much I would guess that the drag issue was very important.

In the early 80´s it was a heated debate in Sweden regarding which engine to chose to the Gripen. The ideal engine would be a thrust around 90-100 kN, something between a F404 and F100. So P&W developed the PW1120 (which was to be used in the Lavi). Volvo Aero and GE then offered an upgraded version of the F404 and this version was picked, but many people still thought it was underpowered. A couple of reasons of that choice it was believed to have greater upgrading possibilities in the future (which turned out to be true) and it was more fuel-efficient. One wonder what would happen if they had chose the PW1120 (considering the Lavi was canceled in 1987).

Today the choice of the F404 seems to be the right one, specially now with the F414 in the Gripen NG. But what would have happened if the Gripen turned out to have more drag, instead of less, then anticipated? I don´t dare to think the thought…

According to an article in a norwegian newspaper (http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article2363784.ece#VG) SAAB guarantees that the Gripen NG will cost half that of the JSF if Norway choses the SAAB product. JSF has not even manage to specified its cost to Norway.

Today other norwegian newspapers reports that JSF is delayed and will not manage to deliver its specifications to the norwegian deadline on april 28th. The Eurofighter has pulled out of the competition and if JSF can´t cut the deadline the Gripen NG will be the only contender in the norwegian fighterdeal.
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=505765

True but the Gripen has been in production for years and its hardly as capable as the Lightning II……:diablo:

??? Did I say that? I was only comparing prices just like you did with the SuperHornet and Raptor. It may be interesting when Gripen is fighting for the same orders as F-35 and SuperHornet…

(BTW, Gripen is about 1000x times more capable then the F-35 cause AFAIK the Lightning is still in development stage, are years from being operational and is not cleared for any weapons yet. It´s like me saying that the 2050 SAAB Superplasma Stealth Crusier Jet Gripen Mk18 is more capable, just wait and see)

If so, I cant think of any other newly designed fighter following such a route in recent times. Every other modern fighter (i can think of at this late hour) has gone through an evolution.

The Gripen was a true multirole/swing aircraft when the first A/B-versions entered squadron service over 10 years ago. (Well, the Swedish airforce did´nt buy the reconnaissance pod until a few years ago cause we did´nt needed it back then but the aircraft was still cleared for it).
The C/D version came to be not because of any design flaws, but because of a new world and a new role for the Swedish armed forces, internationalisation, NATO-adoptation and the export-possibilities. The improvements were mainly “soft-ware stuff” (radar, databuses, computers etc) which are very easy and inexpensive cause Gripen is designed with these upgrade possibilities in mind. The design changes that where made where IIRC a stronger landinggear, stronger wing with NATO-pylons and aerial refuelling equipment.
IIRC the cost of upgrading a A/B-version to the newest C/D-version are about 5 million US$/aircraft…

The Swiss have fought, defending their airspace against incursions in WW2. I believe the same is true of the Swedes, & they have also engaged in ground attack missions in support of UN forces.

In WWII Sweden sent a fighter wing to fight for Finland (voluntary pilots) and SAAB 29 Tunnan fighters in Congo in the 60´s. During the cold war there were off course “war-time” situations over the Baltic Sea with aircrafts from both Sweden and Sovietunionen going down…