except for some funny simulation and some funny claims about 50:1 kill ratio coming out of nowhere.

The 49:1 kill ratio was achieved by RAF pilots during an exercise in summer 2007. Enemies included various kinds of aircraft including Tornado ADV, F-15, Hawk and others. Was reported in an AFM issue if I remember right. I mean to remember that it was also published in one of the Eurofighter review or update issues.

There is nothing biased in my view here. I am claiming that Typhoon has lost in Korea, Singapore and Brazil, it indeed has, no bias here.. Please, keep in mind that Typhoon was usually not picked as a winner even from technical point of view, IIRC, Koreans evaluated the Rafale as the most advanced design, followed by F-15K. How would you explain that if, according to you, Typhoon is so much better than anything else?

Where did they claim the Rafale won on technical matters over the Typhoon? The Typhoon was already eliminated before the final round and the reasons were very much the same as for Singapore, the lack of AG capabilities at the scheduled time of delivery. The slow integration of AG weapons and high price tag are indeed hindering the export efforts abit, but that doesn’t make the aircraft a bad air to air fighter, which is the main argument here. This is for what this aircraft was mainly designed.

It is correct that a Rafale can lift much more payload and actually excels in its weight class. But what if you don’t need that?
Honestly, no conceivable conflict for Brazil would see a huge number of interdiction targets. If you think of a border skirmish with Venezuela, where to drop all the bombs? Identifying targets is the real challenge.

Important for a small air force is the maximum sortie rate over a certain time period, the assumed downtime for maintenance and the training requirements. Even with 36 aircraft Brazil will have problems covering its airspace, even when we cut out the large north-eastern jungle regions.

You have to take into account that the 36 aircraft is just a first batch. Brazil plans to buy up to 120 aircraft in the long term.

1 – 72,000lbs thrust in an Eagle is going to improve it’s acceleration

2 – All agree with that but how much is that going to matter against modern missiles?

3 – Possibly but then Japan would probably incorporate it’s own SA and I have no idea what the state of the art there is.

4 – SKs have an IRST IIRC

5 – Evidence?

6 – Agreed.

You do so as if maneuvrability is just good for avoiding missiles, but it is mainly important to get in position to launch a missile, BVR as WVR. The pk of missiles isn’t 100% and it is gradually reduced the higher the HOBS angle. Claiming it is completely useless is as short minded as Stars “stealth is worthless” argumentation. So far the only thing upgraded F-15s can offer is AESA, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically superior. So far there are few information available about the F-15Ks IRST, but it seems to be a long wave sensor only, while PIRATE is a dual-band sensor with imaging capabilities as well. And how will Japan incorporate its own SA? That would mean a completely different sensor suite and integration, software etc. More than unlikely to happen.
BTW where are your 36k lb thrust engines?

The gripen Demo is a testbed and isn´t the same as Gripen NG, Thales may not be the supplyer in the end…
Gripen NG will choose the best T/R modules on the market, and a backend och integration from Saab Microwavesystems.
What i heard about the Thales T/R modules, is that they lack in power.. so that makes Thales a unlikely supplyer, and gripen the winner radarwise.

And again “rafale would not kill as well”

If you ask a french pilot about a dogfight offcouse he will tell you that…he´s french?!
So a gripen C/D lack in power to a Rafale F2, and only in, hi alt dogfights? 🙂
So it doesnt lack in speed and in lo level dogfights..maybe the tabels have turned..not bad for a single engine craft..:D

Gripen NG has a big engine upgrade.. so all this is really irrelevant.
But if you like numbers you got it:

Thrust to weight ratio (Thrust in kg/Full internal fuel in liter+ empty weight in kg + 4*BVR, 2*WVR ~1000 kg)
Rafale (7652*2/4600 + 9500 + ~1000): 1.01
Gripen NG (11975/3150 + 7100 + ~1000): 1.06

And to add even more to the refinement, F414G be a better engine in wider pressure ranges(alt) than RM12 and F404.

the old EWS 39 has also been proven in exercises to be a excellent system, especially the jammer..(see redflag alaska)

the gripens upgrades are funded also, by norway, sweden, SAAB, and a bunch of supplyers.

Situation awareness has been a gripen trademark since A/B version, most part of the sensorfusion and the TIDLS datalink. It takes more than a passive reciever to brake that…even A/B gripens could share passive receiver plots(rawdata) and triangulate the source. A Rafale F3 cant do that.

Back to my latest post..

In my evaluation is based again on a EWS/Radar/datalink/meteor/speed/radarcrosssection fight between those two. This is how a fight goes down today..and is the simplest of way of compare two fighters..

Gripen wins definitly in radar, datalink, and crosssection
Gripen wins probably in EWS
Gripen wins probably in speed(T/W 1,06 vs 1.01 and 1.1+ supercruise*)

And offcourse, this is a “light comparison” 1 vs 1.
For multirole the comparison it gets more complex
And to add even more to the complexity a airforce and a divsity of groundtargets, airfields, tactics, awacs, sams, training, logistics.

When talking about AWACS, Brazil operates the Saab Microwave Systems Erieye radar, which nietly uses TIDLS datalink.

And offcourse Rafale is a great fighter with a big trunk, and beats gripen in a heavyduty, one wave, deep penetrating attack mission.
But not as the fight is closer to a small and rough airfield which can be used for reloading, and the conflict is longer than one wave.
Then Gripen can deliver much more punch per hour.

Dont know much of the rafales “downtime”*2, but it would be a lot due to 2 engines, though the gripen have the best records in the world. So after the first wave, gripen is halfway back to the theater, when rafale i still refueling, or fixing some technical errors.

*The RM12 can supercruise at 1.1 mach, the F414G would be a better supercruiser with more than +20% dry powergain.
*2 gripen can do landing, rearming, refueling, and takeoff in less then 10 min. and has a MTBF of 7.6 hours.

Al

There is a lot of guessing in your post and few facts especially when it comes to the Rafale.
From where does the “11975 kg” figure for the F414G comes from? Seems to be a guess of max increase proposed by the manufacturer, but it’s not fact. You have also to take into account that a 20% thrust increase for the M88 is no problem and has already been proven.
RCS is not soley related to size and while the Gripens frontal RCS might be small due its small size, the Gripen wasn’t designed with LO treatments in mind, unlike the Rafale. Radar is just a guess and the MIDS is already quite capable, I don’t see any advantages for the Gripen here.
So what is the MTBF for the Rafale etc.? I guess you don’t know, yet you claim the Gripen is clearly superior.

so you know the 1200nm claim is bogus, yet you continue to repeat it all the while chanting “that’s what LM says” while you know exactly how that came to be :rolleyes:

Given the ~600 nm is true it is indeed bogus. I personally expect the max range being in the range of 1600 nm+. I was basically indicating that LM itself claims such “crap”, though it’s not unusual at such an early stage. The situation was exactly the other way round for the Typhoon for example, there ferry range was given with 2000 nm, while the combat radius was just given with 300 nm. We now have a 750 nm figure as combat radius.

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/2%20April%20Press%20Briefing%20-%20Navy%20League.pdf

as of April 2007, the estimated combat radius for the A model in the USAF profile was 625nm

so the max range in ideal conditions with no weapon load is LESS than 2x the combat radius? uh huh :rolleyes:

use some common sense here

For you the same, read and understand before coming up with such things. As said it’s LM itself who gives the RANGE ON INTERNAL FUEL with 1200 NM. It’s not me, my guess, but LMs own claim. That we can assume a higher max range in reality ok, the question is how much higher range and does the F-35 fullfil its requirements, exceeds it or doesn’t live up to the specification? It hasn’t been proven so far. I’m not argueing against it, I just wait for more data and as long as claims are made without solid back up it’s my right to question the value of such statements.

I wrote:

So we basically can assume a higher max range, but the document doesn’t say so. It’s not new that initial range data are often much lower (published) than they actually are.

600nm is the combat radius requirement (that it easily meets)

1200nm is the total flown on a ‘combat mission’ profile, ferry range will be much, much longer (combat radius includes segments of supersonic dash not to mention carrying the payload half way)

This comes directly from a LM document

Range (internal fuel) . . ~1,200 n.mi / 2,222 km

It doesn’t say combat load or anything else. Though the same document claims >590 nm combat radius. So we basically can assume a higher max range, but the document doesn’t say so. It’s not new that initial range data are often much lower (published) than they actually are. So far we can work with that data only however and make assumptions at best.

Now put those two and the F-35 against a S-400 site or some Su-35s and see who comes home. :diablo:

It doesn’t make a great difference for a non stealthy ac at all. Take a Rafale or Typhoon and you strike the priority target from several hundreds of km away using stand-off missiles such as the Taurus, Storm Shadow or Scalp-EG. The tactics will be different.
For the Su-35 if anyone is buying this aircraft at the time it gets operational non stealthy ACs will feature AESA and new BVR missiles such as AIM-120D or Meteor. I wouldn’t hold my breath to much for the Su-35, though it can be considered a though threat.