Another news release regarding the AdAs US deployment from defence-aerospace.com

First Operational Exercise in the United States for Rafale fighter

(Source: Dassault Aviation; dated Sept. 15, issued Sept. 16, 2008)

Two French Air Force Rafale B two-seater aircraft on the apron at Nellis AFB, during their participation in the Red Flag exercise in August. (Dassault Aviation photo)
From July 27 to August 27, 2008, four twin-seat Rafale fighters from French air force Squadron 1/7, “Provence”, based at Saint-Dizier, conducted this aircraft’s first operational exercise in the United States. The aim of this trip was to compare the aircraft’s operating experience, especially during foreign deployment missions, with the requirements of weapon systems used by other air forces.

After a transatlantic ferry flight via the Azores, and a stopover in Bangor, Maine, the four Rafales touched down at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona on July 28.

The squadron exchange at Luke AFB was very successful, meeting both human and tactical objectives and enabling the crews to get to know each other. Rafale fighters conducted simulated combats with the F-16s. According to Matt Spears, an F-16 pilot with the USAF’s 309th Fighter Squadron, “It was an amazing opportunity, and I was very impressed by the capabilities of the aircraft.”

Since Luke AFB is the training base for USAF units, all squadrons passing through will learn about the Rafale’s performance capabilities. This should facilitate teamwork during combined operations.

Red Flag

From August 7 to 22, the aircraft moved to Nellis Air Force Base, near Las Vegas, for the Red Flag war gaming exercise, involving the air forces of several allied countries. The exercise had been planned for a year and a half, and is designed to enhance interoperability. The French air force has been a regular participant in Red Flag exercises since 1981, sending all fighter types to take part. This year, in addition to the American F-15 and F-16 fighters, there were also Sukhoi-30MKIs from India and F-15Ks from South Korea.

Red Flag is organized by the 414th Combat Training Squadron, nicknamed “Red Flag”, and simulates situations very close to actual combat, in particular with the use of live munitions for certain “attacks”. In a typical exercise, “Blue Air” (friend) engages “Red Air” (foe) under realistic combat conditions. Each engagement involves 40 to 60 aircraft, covering all mission aspects, and focusing on progressive levels and density: different threats, from the least to the most sophisticated; and a theater saturated with surface-to-air and air-to-air threats, pushing aircraft to operate at their limits.

Mission Commander

Deployed solely in the “Blue Air” forces, the Rafale participated in all major missions. Crews were designated as “mission commander” several times. The French detachment participated in at least one day strike and one night strike daily, for a period of ten days, confirming the aircraft’s complete range of capabilities and its multirole design. Operating in a dense, hostile environment, the aircraft’s systems provided pilots with a clear, precise view of the tactical situation. The multi-sensor data fusion system (RBE2 radar, Front Sector Optronic (FSO), Spectra self defense suite, Link 16 datalink) worked perfectly. Thanks to this system, the Rafale amply proved its self-defense capabilities. It experienced no losses due to air defense systems, and was often able to eliminate these threats.

Operational scenarios provided for the simultaneous use of MBDA Mica EM and IR air-to-air missiles, Sagem Défense Sécurité AASM guided weapons and MBDA Scalp cruise missiles. American observers were impressed by the accuracy of the AASM weapons. Each aircraft can simultaneously engage six targets over an extended area, with each bomb having its own ballistics and target coordinates.

The Rafale fighters used the Link-16 datalink network for allied aircraft. This technology ensures Rafale’s interoperability with other weapon systems, in particular for a balanced allocation of firing plans between the different aircraft. Since all possible scenarios are recorded on the ground, if one Rafale does not hit its target another one can take over to complete the mission.

Capabilities to be discovered

The French squadron’s logistics information was networked with the base at Saint-Dizier. Two encrypted communications systems, Arpagon and Amasis, sent updated technical data for each aircraft back to France. In fact, throughout the service life of the aircraft, this setup will offer enhanced traceability of all spare parts used. Furthermore, it will decrease maintenance costs because parts will only be changed when strictly necessary.

All French pilots were proud of being able to present a latest-generation aircraft which is still at the beginning of its career, and whose full range of capabilities has yet to be discovered.

-ends-

Note the boldened passage in comparison to to the quote of H_K. It highlights no loses due airdefences not no looses at all.

Yes, I forgot about the raptor. however, my focus was mainly on the mrca birds – has the c5 even been integrated with the typhoon as yet? btw, iirc most MRAAMs use MCG, i’d think longer ranged one’s would need it even more.

The AIM-120C-5 is integrated into the Typhoon since block 2B and is at least used by the RAF. Concerning MCG, there seems to be the problem, the passive engagement capabilities of the Rafale apart the pk when using the MICA IR at max range is limited, even more so as the SPECTRA/OSF combo won’t provide the required data for an accurate firing solution. BTW I see no reason why the MICA EM shouldn’t be able to be launched the same way, the only difference is that the seeker goes active in the terminal phase of flight.

for the rafale otoh, it was definitely a strong area of focus and that should make some difference.

It was, nontheless one has to consider that the requirements were lowered on cost grounds when the cold war was over. I personally assume that the Rafale is more stealthy than the Typhoon though the lack of conformal weapons stations is a disadvantage in an opoerational configuration.

J

ust that they have fielded an AESA in double quick time. Similarly with the Su-35 as well and thats despite what folks on internet fora have been yelling about the russkies being under a cloud of the 90s turmoil. Don’t see the europeans despite the “better” economies churning out upgrades that quick.

The Russians are working on AESA systems since quite some time, the Su-35 features technologies which are a tradeoff of existing or projected systems for the PAK FA and other Flankers. BTW under fielded I understand it is in operational service, the Zhuk-MAE demonstrator is very similar to the CAESAR as being no completely new design but based on an existing MSA radar.

don’t think you’ll have to wait long. 10-15 years ago, a flanker with such a radar did not really exist.

While I don’t doubt it is possible I want yet to see it happen. Costs and requirements could be restrictive.

Not very different from tomtomming vaunted EF-2000 capabilities when hard facts are virtually unseen.

Well a lot has been demonstrated and the Typhoon proved itself very well during exercises, though there are a lot of details about nothing is known.

Yes, but what if your position is already compromised by then? First look makes a lot of difference right? still further, what happens to your endurance and operating radius when you drop the tanks? Can you still match the flanker in a cat and mouse game? Also, if you are going to lug those jugs to try and match the flanker’s range, what does it do to your flight performance? I’d agree with you that a clean config EF-2000 is more nimble than the flanker in certain supersonic regimes, but what happens when it starts to lug EFTs to match the flanker’s range?

You have to consider that a Flanker will start using up fuel from the very beginning as well, once on a patrol quite some fuel is used. In a Typhoon the external fuel will be used so the reserves might be easily identical when the Typhoon drops the tanks.

IIRC, the tvc is used to trim drag (even supersonic and if not at least in the high subsonic)

And that is where I have my doubts. I know it is theoretically possible, but AFAIK this isn’t the case for the AL-31FP in the Su-30MKI and its derivates. As said the Su-35 is AFAIK the first Flanker which uses TVC in the supersonic regime as well.

err, don’t see why the mKI pilots wont be acting as a team. IAF training and tactics seems pretty uptodate it seems.

Didn’t said that, it is just one thing which has to be considered as well.

Less fuel – the MKI still boasts a range of 4500km on internal fuel and an endurance of 4.5 hours. With IFR, the birds regularly fly sorties that are literally mind boggling: pune-jodhpur-tezpur-a&C islands-pune endurance of 10 hours. Simply not possible in a Tiffy – the pilot will probly lose his mind!

Ehm from where does the 4500 km range figure come from? The Su-27 had a range of 3680-4000 km on internal fuel that’s widely recognised. The Su-30MKI has the same fuel load, identical fuel consumption besides the engines, yet it is draggier and heavier. All sources I know give the of the Su-30MKI with 3000 km. What is the point about long endurance patrols?

We had some pretty interesting posts in the EF-2000 thread, compare the specs with the OLS-30 on the flanker. not much difference, esp. in terms of range.
the pirate is supposed to detect @ about 56-90km under normal circumstances, the OLS otoh, detects @ 50 non afterburning targets and “several times that” for AB targets!

So is OLS dual-band, does it pose imaging capabilities, cinematical ranging etc.? Range is one thing, PIRATEs is given with up to 145 km, though further details are unknown. Typical range is given with 50-80 km, sounds indeed similar who knows. All OLS figures I see/saw give the 50 km/90 km figure but no of them specifies AB or non AB.

i think it has more to do with the amount of information a single pilot has to deal with at a given moment. the bloke simply might not be able to process all of it!

And that’s why sensor fusion is important. Typhoon autopilot even includes an attack mode where the pilot is freed from flying the aircraft if the need arises.

Hardly, with EFTs, the tiffy’s range is still a good 500km less iirc (4500km:3700?).

See above.

why no MCG? Also, I assume the seeker will be bigger than a normal AAM and oughtn’t to have too much trouble keeping track of a slow moving AEW a/c.

Well with such a long range weapon you might easily enter the enemies engagment envelope. A Meteor has not exactly a low range if you know what I mean.

Possibly, but still it is a capability (A2A) that the Ef-2000 does not have.

True, if such missiles are finally introduced.

Agreed but you can make the MKI lighter using composites (being done already, also check the 35), something that you can’t do much with more recently designed eurocanards. you can further increase the range of the flanker by adding EFTs, can’t do that with the others either. You can have bigger conformal AESA arrays with the flankers, can’t do that with the ef types either, you can have a tail sting radar in the flanker, again can’t do the same with the eurocanards etc. The Su-35 variant is an excellent example of what the MKI could be upgraded to (but not limited to). It turns up having everything most eurocanards offer and more to spare. All said and done i simply don’t see a fully specced tiffy or rafale going toe to toe with a Su-35 type. The Irbis (or a massive AESA) ought to provide first look to the flanker.

Upgrading an aircraft with so much composites is almost impossible, except you built a new airframe. Many of the “upgrades” are indeed no upgrades but a new airframe. Most of your upgrades are done, where is the future potential. How much lighter is the Su-35 in reality, no data has been disclosed… CFTs are a possibility to increase range if required.

* I’m basing the above ranges/radii on the idea that the tiffy does 2600km clean on full internal fuel, combat radius should be half of that (1300 km). With 60% fuel, the Ef-2000 should manage about half that. The flanker can do about 3000 km on the normal fuel load (not full) clean. Combat radius ought to be 1500km. not really counting weapon weight here.

I highly doubt the Su-30 which is much heavier and draggier than the Typhoon yet using engines with similar or higher SFC and being stronger = more consumption will achieve a greater range than the Typhoon with similar fuel. It is just unrealistic wishthinking and I have no idea from where these data come, but they are nonsense.

A possibility is quite different from a proven concept. The rafale has it now and stresses on its unique advantage. Yes, it might be possible with an ARH, but has it been tried? Does it work? Theoretically possible, but haven’t seen anything in this regard from the other contestants. It is interesting to note that the Khbiny EW system claims to do this with the R-27.

It definitely works, F-22+AN/ALR-94+AIM-120C to give a hint. An IR missile can’t be launched at very long range with LOBL. Hence it will guide itself towards the thread using INS before acquiring the target with its seeker very much like any ARH AAM which receives no MCG. The problem here is pk.

Perhaps (esp in the case of the Shornet it seems to be a design goal), however, in the case of the EF-2000, it looks more of an afterthought. JMT though.

For the Typhoon it wasn’t an afterthought, but not a great priority. frontal RCS reduction measures were deemed to be practical with compromising the design in any way.

I was speaking mainly in context of the MRCA contest – Snecma, M88 with its ECO core is already selected to develop the Kaveri for the Tejas. OBviously a 9 ton + engine is being looked at, the development is already taking place as we discuss, India is indeed providing the necessary budgetary requirements. Note that the Rafale boys were pretty keen on incorporating the Kaveri for an Indian rafale as an incentive towards the MRCA

Interesting here would be to know what Dassault offers and what the IAF would require.

The other side of the coin is that they have also sprung some decent surprises in the last decade – the Zhuk Aesa for example (apart from the MKI).

Ehm just wonder what exactly is so surprising about the Zhuk-AE or MKI?

As far as the KS-172 goes, limited as their use may be against super agile tiffy types, i don’t think a tiffy driver will be thinking of its limitations if he is faced with the prospect. He would be immediately on the defensive. In fact, this is one more area where the gap simply cannot be bridged, the eurocanards simply don’t have the radar to use awac killers.

Well those AWACS killers are not available for any Flanker, yet they are proposed since 15 years or so. I would like to see such weapons before I become more concerned. What bothers me is that people seem to believe that these missiles will achieve the brochure performances in any conditions against any target. Sorry but I highly doubt any Flanker will be able to launch such a missile from 300-400 km at an advanced fighter target.

What kind of great frontal RCS will an EF have after hanging lovely EFTs on it? Not to mention drag penalties. BTW, the PR dept of the EF-2000 puts the EF @ about 1/10 the F-15’s rcs. Not really in the league of a rafale type imho (PR dept. puts it as 1/10th of the M2k). The MKI (esp. the newer ones) could be about 3msq clean.

There are a lot of claims about the Typhoon’s RCS some sound more some others less impressive. Who knows how they are in reality. I agree that the RCS will rise with tanks and other stuff, but while tanks can be droped a huge airframe remains a huge airframe. Especially the MKI is a very heavy and also compareably draggy platform given the Flanker style twinseat tandem configuration. Add yet that the engines are still in the same thrust class as for the less draggier and lighter Su-27. In terms of acceleration, climb and supersonic performance I consider the baseline Su-27 to be superior to any Su-30 derivate unless they introduce considerably stronger engines such as the article 117S.

Such a marginal difference cannot blow away a solid radar advantage. As far as MMI/DASS is concerned, some more acronyms, but little in terms of real figures from the EF guys.

Well the problem is to find compareable “figures” for both aircraft to judge.
BTW just being interested, has the Su-30MKI an internal jammer or not? As I understand it it has a high band component of the EL8222 internal and a low/medium band podded jammer?

Lets not forget MMI becomes a lot more effective when distributed bet 2 pilots, another advantage of the MKI.

Yes, but only if both crew members act effectively as a team and the second seat means more weight, less fuel (or same fuel but even more weight), higher drag (at least in the Flankers case) and higher costs, especially operating costs.

Btw, similar adjectives et al were used for the Pirate as well only for us to find out that it is hardly any more spectacular than the now ancient MKI OLS.

Could you elaborate on it?

Another point about the MMI bit, extensive sensor fusion could be to the pilot’s detriment as well (in case of info overload), iirc the french ordered a bunch of 2 seat rafales to compensate for this.

In specific situations, especially simultaneous engagement of AA and AG targets a second crew member is definitely an advantage, if not a must. Nonetheless I don’t see what should be a disadvantage about sensor fusion. You may mean a to high degree of automatation leaving the pilot with a lower freedom of actions?

The Tiffy and others are simply not in a flanker’s class, while there may be a marginal advantage in terms of flight regimes, the flanker if driven properly, can cancel this out. The advantages of the MKI otoh (such as range, endurance and 2 pilots, plus the ability to use VLRAAMs), are as you put it simply unbridgeable for the tiffy types.

The MKIs range is just superior on internal fuel, once external tanks are loaded the range is quite similar, with the difference that ETs can be dropped… The VLRAAM is nice for high value asset attacks, yet it would be interesting how such a weapon will perform over a very long range without MCG. For airsuperiority such weapons are of limited use for various reasons.

It is infact precisely this point where the flanker has an untouchable advantage as shown by its latest avatar, the Su-35. Everything, the tiffy types can offer in terms of being smaller and less draggy, the flanker can achieve via larger engines. By the time the eurocanards struggle to achieve even full capability (no damocles, hms, Amraam C5 etc), the russkies churn out another advanced flanker variant. Not bad for a counrty thats supposed to still be in economic doldrums. Contrary to what other may feel, imho the flanker has a loong way to go before it reaches its end – the huge airframe offers way too much potential. Conversion to tanker, growler and even aew variants have been thought of – larger airframe = larger radar, more ew equipment, larger tanks and so on. I daresay, the eurocanards (esp. the tiffy and the gripen) will reach the end of their potential well before the flanker does. JMT

Huge airframe doesn’t mean that much more space to deal with. A lot internal space is consumed by the larger tanks, larger systems to scope with the larger and heavier airframe. Every engine has its limitations in terms of thrust for its size/weight. You can fit stronger engines to a Flanker so you can do on the F-16, Rafale, Typhoon or whatever smaller airframe. It’s a moot point. Furthermore especially sensors can’t be retrofitted that easily. A lot depends on how much space is left and more importantly if you can fit them to places where they are useful.

Remains yet to be seen if and when the MKI will receive such goodies at all. A completely silent engagement as it is possible for the Rafale is indeed a nice feature, but it is possible with ARH missiles as well, at least to a certain degree. The ARH missile will go active in the terminal phase, but you can launch it passivly as the MICA IR for example. The main question is the pk here at longer distances.
BTW the Eurofighter and Super Hornet includes RCS reduction measures as well.
Stronger engines for the Rafale are potentially offered but not on order, the fact that France has to pay for it all alone until now is a problem and technologies such as a HMD/S had been canceled to budget constrains.

Got a question regarding the combat radii of the eurofighter. On the Starstreak website the ranges are stated:

Lo Lo Lo 325nm (601km)
Hi Lo Hi 750nm (1389km)
10min loiter 750nm (1389km)
3 hour CAP 100nm (185km)

Ferry with 2x 1000L tanks 2000nm (3706km)

Now are these figures correct/close/confirmed? And do the figures of the combat radii include external fuel?

Well confirmed in that way that these are essentially data given by the manufacturer. These are basically specifications however and the numbers might differ a bit in reality. And yes the combat radius figures include external tanks. BTW why don’t you directly ask at starstreak?

It seems we have some resident experts on the Eurofighter on this board, at least one of which I recognise from the old starstreak Eurofighter boards a few year ago. So I will continue with my onslaught of questions:

PIRATE
1. What is the range of detection?
2. What can you pick up? ie at what range can you see something like the F22?
3. To what degree does aspect make a difference?
4. Once target is ‘acquired’ does that mean a heater can be locked on?

I know these are tough questions, and I don’t expect there will be completely accurate answers, but just wanted to see what people out there think.

1.) According an AFM special about the Eurofighter and I read it on other sources as well the detection range is up to 145 km, but that depends on the targets IR signature and weather conditions.
2.) As no details are known it’s impossible to say at what range the PIRATE could detect a F-22.
3.) A huge one given available data from russian systems the detection of an IRST can easily be twice as high for a target in the rear hemisphere than from the frontal hemisphere.
4.) Not necessarily, the missiles seeker has to be able to lock onto the target. Hence acquiring the target with an onboard sensor doesn’t mean you can launch a missile at it. Most missiles provide LOAL capabilities, still the problem of acquiring the target by the missile seeker is a different issue.

Swerve, Toan – thats great.

So you have the production “tranches” and the development “blocks”.

The jumble of data finally begins to make sense.

Meanwhile Scorpion launched a Counter Air Mission with this:

Now what in the name of.. is the PSP4 software or SRP4 and what is a HEA helmet?

Also what is ROVER3 function?

Well the so called “Counter Air Mission” is started because some of the details given are wrong.
The HEA is the Typhoon’s HMD/S, which delayed due some problems.
ROVER 3 is a datalink catridge within the Litening III LDP for transmitting the images of the LDP to ground troops.
PSP = Production Software Package required to support new and additional functions. SRP is just another name (Software Release Package or was it Service… RP?).

Just to sum up the list of Tranches & blocks:

Tranche 1 (divided into batch 1 & 2):
Batch 1 (Block 1):
Block 1 2003:
– Phase 3 FCS
– EJ200 MK101 EIS
– No refueling probe and gun
– PSP1 software for initial air combat training
– no DASS, IFF, PIRATE, MIDS and some other equipment
– stores 1 x centre line tank, 2 AIM-9L or ASRAAM and 4 x AIM-120B

Block 1B/C (through R1 upgrade from april/may 2005):
– Addition of the refueling probe and gun
– changes to the electrical systems
– software update

Batch 2 (blocks 2, 2B & 5):
Block 2 2004/2005:
– EJ200 MK101FOC
– Phase 3 FCS with DRF and ALSR
– Gun & refueling probe from start
– initial autopilot and DVI
– enhanced AA modes for Captor-C
– DASS with MAWS, ESM & ECM
– MIDS
– initial sensor fusion
– DME-P, GPWS & MLS
– no seperate TACAN (now incorporated by the MIDS)
– stores added: IRIS-T (analoge interface)

Block 2B 2006:
– Phase 4 FCS with AMLS (full carefree handling for AA)
– PSP3 software
– Ariel TRD
– imrpoved sensor fusion
– stores added: AIM-120C-5+ability to use up to 3 x tanks, 4 x SRAAM, 6 x MRAAM

Block 5 2007:
– Phase 5 FCS full performance envelope & AG munitions handling
– PSP4 software
– Full autopilot and DVI
– improved GPS
– Captor-C with initial AG modes
– Full DASS including LWR, automated chaff/flare dispenser and Sky Buzzer TRD (Germany only)
– Initial PIRATE
– full sensor fusion
– weapons: gun for AG, PAveway II and GBU-10/16

Austere Package (RAF Typhoon block 5 only):
– Enhanced Paveway II and Litening III (not fully capable right now)

Notes:
– HEA is supported by PSP4 software and will be delivered in 2009
– PIRATE will receive full functionality with software update
– MAWS currently inactive (hardware exists however), will be “activated” via software update
– All older tranche 1 aircraft will be brought to block 5 standard via the R2 upgrade

Tranche 2 (batches 3, 4 & 5 according original plans):
Batch 3 block 8 2008:
– new engine controls (DECMU)
– new mission computers
– Captor-D (new components including PowerPC processor)
– New DASS/Praetorian computers
– PSP4 software is initially used
– No austere package for RAF block 8 aircraft

batch 4 block 8B (Phase 1 Enhancements) ~2012:
– New software based on RTOS
– improved MMI including display formats for AG weapons…
– Ability to attack AA targets, while continueing AG run
– new radios
– Improved MIDS (increased transfer rates; improved communication with ground units)
– imrpoved DASS (new ESM/ECM, maybe improved TRD)
– Captor-D additional AG modes
– new GPS (probably DGPS)
– IFF mode 5 likely
– unspecified external changes (maybe Apex strakes or already CFTs)
– weapons: full Litening II/III, IRIS-T (digital), EGBU-16 and Enhanced Paveway IV

Tranche 2 notes:
Tranche 2 was originally supposed to consist of the three batches 3, 4 and 5 in which aircraft of the standards block 8, 10 and 15 should have been produced with the latter 2 featuring the EOC 1 & 2. EOC 1 & 2 was eventually replaced by P1E & P2E, but just P1E has been contracted (march 30th 2007) and P2E has been abondoned in favor for increamental upgrades similar to the RAFs austere package for block 5 aircraft.
I’m not sure if the batches are retained, but the block 10 & 15 has been eliminated. It might be that final tranche 2 aircraft will receive a new block number beyond 8. Plans call for the integration of additional weapons such as Brimstone, Storm Shadow, KEPD-350 Taurus and Meteor. Weapon options include HOSBO/HOPE, AIM-120C-7 (interim solution until Meteor is available), GBU-54 LJDAM and ARMs as well as ASMs if a customer requires it. 2000 l wing tanks are likely and additional avionics upgrade possible.

Tranche 3:
Tranche 3 was originally supposed to consist of the batches 6 & 7 with aircraft being produced in the so called block 20 & 25 configurations. As there were changes to T2 designations it might be that T3 aircraft will be designated differently. Capabilities has not been specified, but a number of options exists.
These options include:
– Captor-E AESA (with mechanical sweeping options in addition)
– stronger engines (not neccessarily designated EJ230 or EJ270)
– 3-D TVC (a new nozzle based on the current one is studied at the moment, though no requirement exists within the customers)

We have yet to wait until T3 is contraced before we know more about the capabilities of aircraft which will be produced within T3. One thing I’m pretty sure is a wireless hand held computer for data transfer with the aircraft (for maintainance purposes).

Questions?

Many countries are struggling with their defence budgets, and operating cost is becoming a major issue. Several Air Forces have to reduce the number of training flight hours because of this. Operating costs for Gripen is said to be 50% less than F-16; some have qouted 2000-2500 Dollars pr. hour. One increasingly important factor is the cost of fuel; lightweight, single-engine Gripen has an advantage in this respect.

True, but not every air force has these problems. If you require higher capabilities you must accept that it comes at a higher cost. Operating cost also differs from service to service, there is no single figure which is representive for all customers.

Having said that, the current Gripen C/D is in some ways less capable than the Typhoon of course. Gripen NG under development will significantly reduce the gap. The NG is now competing in Norway, Denmark, Holland, India, and Brazil. The increased range, increase payload, AESA, IRST, higher thrust, etc. makes it a tough competitor to the others, including the Typhoon. Combat radius (incl 30 min. on station) 1300 km with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders. Five hour unrefuelled maritime reconnaissance, ferry range 4075 km.

Gripen NG doesn’t exist at the moment and no nation has yet decided to buy it, so it might even be that it will never exist at all. Of course you could adopt some of the technologies for the Gripen C/D but this will require compromises. Even if the Gripen NG comes to fruition at the time it will be available the Typhoon and other aircraft will be further developed as well.

So, how does the Typhoon version offered to e.g. India and Brazil compare ?

As it is not known what these nations require and as Eurofighter hasn’t unveiled any details its impossible to say for now.