What does not exist at all?

And what is the major difference between NSM and RBE-15?

The NSM does not exist as it is not operational anywhere. It will, but it is not today.

The major difference? Are you kidding me, the guidance system perhaps?

AFAIK the NSM does not exist as an air launched version but only in ship and ground launched version.

Kongsberg is working on a missile derived from the NSM; this is the JSM, specially designed to fit into the F-35 weapons bay. I would assume this would be the one that would be relevant for Typhoon and other a/c.

The fact that they state NSM and not JSM make me wonder how serious they are about that drawing…

It also seems the JSM is not yet completely funded (only “prefunded”? 😉 )

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/122437/norway-pleased-with-jsf-but-wants-more-production-work.html

It does´nt exist at all ATM. But that is a non issue.

There is a mayor difference between NSM and RBS-15 etc, guess what?

You cannot use bench ratings for their thrust. Only the manufacturers know the true values within their flight envelopes. The MiG-25 looks like a big underpowered jet until you compare it’s performance and how the engines maintain phenomenal power when flying in it’s design parameters. Maybe someone with a background in turbine design could enlighten us better how these different designs would compare at several altitude and conditions.

I don´t have a background in turbine design. But you are on the right path. It´s not such a matter of the engine, it´s a matter of the design of the air craft. Look at the LCA and Gripen, almost the same weight and the engine. LCA can hardly make it to mach 1.4 while the Gripen does 2.0+ mach. LCA is underpowered while the Gripen has an abundance of power. Looking at the designs the Gripen looks anorectic compared to the chubby LCA. Perhaps this has something to do with it?

Wow. Must have really, personally offended some people here. They feel a need to make personal attacks.

Clearly if you are able to speak with authority on these subjects. I know this is a Euro based board, but it is rather curious that anythng SAAB, Dassault or Eurofighter Consortium might release on behalf of their own company is taken almost without question, but if L-M release something it’s clearly untrue…

Like the 100nm or so the F-22A can actually supercruise for, with it’s rather large onboard fuel load.

I know the Gripen has ‘superb’ aerodynamics, but when I question the media releases and pose a question about how tactically useful said capability can really be, I receive little other than vitriole directed at me personally…

Anyone would think I insulted a family member, rather than posed a question and offered an insight, lacking in finer details though it may have been.

Could one more knowledgable in these matters, please explain it further to me? How does such a single engined fighter wth the limited amount of thrust it has (compared to other aircraft) and an engine optimised for fuel efficient subsonic cruise and supersonic dash in reheat only manage to achieve a feat that eludes so many other fighters?

And what more, do so whilst achieving quite enormous combat radii, that is claimed to be far superior to other aircraft that seem to carry far more fuel and do not seek or boast of such amazing performance?

And they do it it cheaper, more nimbly with a much smaller logistics footprint and so on.

Quite extraordinary really.

Don’t get me wrong, I quite like the Gripen, but it seems difficult to reconcile some of the realities of modern ombat aircraft, with the claims that are made about this particular aircraft.

And then you see whilst it has entered many a competition it has won quite few overall, all up I think it has managed about 64 airframes exported hasn’t it, with about 24 of those leased? Now I don’t subscribe that simply winning a military aircraft contract automatically equates to greatness as a capability, but it is certainly a recognition of a level of capability, so one might wonder about the capability claims made about aircraft and how they equate, or don’t to the aircraft’s relative success on the export market?

Don´t get me wrong brother, I like Aussies and their “laid back” kind of style. Hell, it was an Aussie that introduced me to hashish for the first time (during a midsummer celebration outside Stockholm in 1996). And as for my post, it was kind of ironic, not to be taken seriously. So please don´t get offended, just mind your back so the dingo don´t steal your baby.

Edit: I was not that butthurt. But national pride I think is in everyone. Even a newbie country like yours, Austria.

Last I heard about two year ago was that Russian pilots average around 28 hours a year. Nato pilots average out at around 240 hours a year.

(Those figures were for fast jet types, not helicopters and transports etc.)

240 hours? Any source on that? I thought western pilots average was something like 120 hours. Frankly 240 sounds too much, they are basically flying 1 h/day (free at weekends) with that number…

Ok, just a tought about this Saudi – PAF Erieye purchase.

The way I see it. Hasn´t the major Saudi arms deals with USA decreased in the last decade? I get a feeling they leaning more towards Europe and other regions. And if the US systems comes with strings attached, they offcourse wont buy Israeli (US funded) systems and thinks the Russian systems are not up to date, where else can they turn? They DO have allot collaboration with Pakistan, so is so far fetched they paid the Erieyes for them in return for a lot of things? Remember, this deal is still officially classified, it is approved, but the receiving country is classified.

I mean, think of the arms deals SA has done in the past. They gladly pay 2-3 twice the money what it´s really worth and money is not a concern for them. It all come back. Pakistan just have to buy the same amount of oil from them. It´s a win – win for SA.
Saudis real win is more ally in Pakistan (against Iran) and a little more independence from USA.

(Hope you understand this, just came home from the pub)

Good point kramer, but the prototype didnt fly in 1987, it was 1988. rollout was in late 1987. It was still not a set drawing in 1985.

As i said, all progams with risks involved will meet alot of skeptism and critisim. Its not only in india, its all over. That is part of the state of the art world..people dont understand the difference. And reporters love to write it up all day long.. These things needs to be taken care of bay good engineers, managers and leaders to make funding happen.

But you can never get rid of the requierments, overweight needs to be taken care of. Maybe get rid of avionics or other stuff that overshoot ther requirements?

I don´t know how old you are Sign. I am almost 34 and grew up with the Gripen. I remember as long as I grew up our leftist-anti-Gripen media trying to persudade us this plane was a piece of crap. It was called a lawnmower etc. Indians seems to think the Gripen project whent on smootly, They should have known….

So it is within the intended/targeted/acceptable range, being 6800 kgs empty weight and carrying 2400 kgs of fuel and 4000 kgs of payload..

whereas the Tejas Mk1 is overweight when it is confirmed to be ~6500 kgs empty weight, carries 2460 kgs of fuel and 4000 kgs of payload..

But all sources* says the C/D has maximum take-off weight of 14 tonnes. So should´nt the external payload be 4800 kg? (14000-6800-2400=4800).
Then figures may vary depending on what people means. I know the C/D carries more internal fuel then the A/B cause they are using fuel-tank that was only suppose to be used in war-time settings on the A/B.
What the numbers for the LCA is I have no idea since they don´t seem to have an official homepage…

(BTW, who is this Chris Yeo guy? Does he work for SAAB, the Swedish MoD or a Gripen operating air force?)

(By sources you can make it easy for yourselves and just look the official SAAB-Gripen homepage.)