Sorry but it’s the age old argument about West’s ability and wiliness to compensate by the employment of the full capability of their so-called superiority of BVR AAM’s and radar.
The West still hasn’t a fool proof IFF system.
Predominantly this is the principle reason that during the 1991 Gulf War, the powerful might and the technological edge of the United States could not be used to down Iraqi aircraft without visual I.D first
I have no idea about the Russian’s or the Chinese IFF systems capability and reliability either.

The air superiority F 15 had no problem in 1991 in conducting BVR intercepts. The f 16 OTOH, were obliged to hold their fire until visual confirmation, since they got only the IFF transponder not the interogator. That why no f 16 scored in GW. Once the CCIP program (that includes full IFF suite, including the interogators -the “bird slices” mounted behind the canopy) complete, all the ~ 650 F 16C/D blk 40, 50, 42,52 are able now to do the same.

So I do not fully put my full faith in BVR radars and AAM’s
I am pretty certain that all kills with the ‘all singing, all dancing’ Aim-120 AMRAAM have been achieved and executed WVR envelope.

Here (down the page) there is a graph that shows the history of AA kills (cannon, WVR, BVR). I think that it says enough: http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/bvr04wvr.html

Hello to all of you highly opinionated people!

I have read RAAFs evaluation brief that was prepared very early in 2007. RAAF evaluated Rafale, EF2k, F/A18E/F, Su-35, Gripen and F-16 Blk52+/60 to fulfill AIR 5349 (Bridging Air Combat Capability) requirement until F-35 Lightening II arrives and as the replacement for Aardvarks. Straightaway, RAAF wanted F-22 but the US outrightly rejected export of F-22 and passed congressional resolution to ban the sale and even know-how to even their close allies Japan, Israel and Australia (our defence white-paper outlines use of US nuclear deterrence as part of Australian defence calculations). RAAF pilots have flown all the above-mentioned types (except the GenV aircrafts) and had detailed reports on the viabilities (in every theatre/mode) and capabilities of the said aircrafts. Typhoon was the clear winner. Its MMI was light years in front of the nearest rival the Dassault aircraft.

Rafale is strong in Air-to-Ground and Air-to-Air is secondary strength. F-16, Gripen and SH have little improvement over F/A-18 legacy Hornets that already serve RAAF. Su-35 Terminator prototype just rolled out and RAAF really like it after both our northerly neighbors Malaysia and Indonesia have MK variants of Su-30 (still slightly inferior to MKI). After a very short wait SH was selected and the only reason SH was selected was due to the pressure from Boeing and US. Dassault rep was invited on a TV debate and he was furious that ‘fair’ treatment was not rolled-out to them. The other losers EADS, Knaapo, SAAB and LM did not even bother coming over to Oz. RAAF evaluated all competitors at their parent bases. Rafale was evaluated at Orange; EF2K was evaluated at Moron, Waddington, and Patrica-di-Mare; Gripen was evaluated at ETPS using the latest variant that were being tested from SAAF and Hungarian AF and F-16 was evaluated at Fort Worth.

All evaluation came to the same conclusion that Typhoon must be purchased and public apathy was the reason why their was no independent evaluation or any public outcry of this very hasty decision. Boeing and other US military manufacturers/sellers have the main two-party Australian legislature in their pocket. So much so that McDonnell Douglas did not even supply the basic specs for the radar and other components on the F/A-18 A&B version that McDD (and later Boeing) used to come over to RAAF bases to upgrade the navigation software on the Hornets so the plane could be flown to Red Flag and Green flag and cross the international dateline. First time it happened the nav computers went on fritz. But no one talks about it. The yanks have us by the balls. TUDM (Tentera Udara DiRaja Malaysia, Royal Malaysian Air Force) flies Hornets upgraded to C&D versions and have more control over their hardware and software than the RAAF. RAAF and TUDM train together at Butterworth AFB in Malaysia where RAAF have a permanent station. And US restrictions are a bloody annoyance to RAAF pilots.

Well the reason for the above long explanation is to inform you that please do not discount EF2k from the running. If IAF wants the best progressive aircraft (sans the cost of the craft) that is a true bridge to GenV, then Typhoon must win and will win.

If:

• Kickbacks of any kind are not involved;
• Selection process is transparent;
• Evaluators make the best choice based on abilities present and future (EADS has offered to make India a partner country);
• IAF wants the best aircraft for its’ pilots and does not get swayed away to please the Yanks as Indian love to do it (case-in-point the Mumbai massacre – cannot even defend your own citizens);

IAF will select EF2k and nothing else, least of all F-16 which US has used as stocking fillers for every country that it gives military alms (bheekh). Countries who realized the obvious and hence co-funded and ordered F-15SG (Singapore), F-15 SlamEagle (Korea), F-15I Ra’am (Israel), F-15J (Japan) and Chink-Kuo (Taiwan).

So, please wake-the-f-up. Just because US is calling India a friend does not mean that we must buy F-16 the fighter that was denied to IAF in the 80s. Maybe you guys do not know that Pres Johnson and Nixon denied IAF F-16 and offered F-5 and even encouraged UK to sell English Electric Lightning to IAF that US was willing to subsidise. Yet they gave it to Pak as part of the Peace Gate military package who then wired it to drop nukes on India (helped by TAI).

We must start an online campaign on discussion forms like these and encourage discussion that may/might influence the correct people. Otherwise, few Babus will get rich and we will be stuck with it an old and obsolete fighter like Solah. EF unit cost might be expensive across the board but that is only because not many have been sold. European nations like Poland and Greece selected EF but in the end settled for F-16 because of US pressure. But Saudis selected EF and Singaporean selected F-15 over Rafale because EF could not meet the delivery dates.

Please Indians, my brothers – do not make the mistake. Stand up for yourselves and make your leaders accountable for what they do as it is supposed to happen in a democracy. We need to stand up for ourselves and not look at the US (they are in every issue for their own reason). We need to make Pak accountable for Mumbai. US did more investigation for their 6 dead than we did for our 170. They makeup excuses to attack people/countries (as Dubya said that Saddam tried to kill his father), but we cannot defend our honor when strangers come inside our house and kicked in our balls.

SunnyFromOz.

Just two comments about this moronic post:
1.

[*]Kickbacks of any kind are not involved;

:p:p:pIt seems that you are the only person on this planet that doesn’t know that the two export contracts for EF were accompanied by huge corruption scandals!

2. The countries that use F 15I, F 15 SG and F 15 K also use lots of F 16! The Israelis are, in fact the largest F 16 user outside US! They have 25 F15I and 360 F 16. And the F 15 J are also used with the F 16-based Mitsubishi F 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNIcuLGC5eE That’s a Polish blk. 52. Hardly a “flying bricK”…:diablo:

I think that information can be inferred from my previous posts. You however haven’t provided a source for the 463km figure. Even the most vanilla estimates are in the 600-800nm combat radius range. 463km isn’t even a 300nm radius- do you really think that’s anywhere near being accurate?:rolleyes:

Here are some “semi-official” figures ( http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/January%202005/0105raptor.pdf ): 405 Nmiles, including 100 Nmiles 1.5 dash, or 600 Nmile only subsonic. Aside those, ~20 min are spent over combat zone in supercruise.

That merit actually belongs to Volvo Aero. The 414 is a direct result of the RM12 and continuous upgrades on that… (But I´ll give GE some credit as well. The 404 is a sound design to improve on. 😉 )

That’s a bad joke. All what Volvo added (under GE supervision) to the F 404-412 in order to obtain the RM 12 was some safety features necessary on a single jet engine, thus not present on the original GE engine.

F 414 was specifically designed for the Superhornet. This one had its first flight 1995. Not even the Grippen A was operational then.

It is a long way from barely being apt to assemble engines from Rolls Royce (RM6) P&W (RM8) and GE (RM12) and to improve those high tech items…

Very much like ours i believe, A2A configuration; only Gripen sweep angle is FEW * off that of a Rafale.

With AAMS only i trust it will supercruise at least 0.1 M higher although it already is specified as such in this article, we have other sources saying it already DOES more than 1.1 in its curent (C) version..

1.2 with wingtip AIM-9s.

Ho that’s RICH!

But we understand since USAF decided Supersonic starts at M 1.5.

Q: Where do YOU think the SUPER from SuperCRUISE come from?

America we all know is the land of the SUPERHEROES, no reason there for taking the P!SS out of everyone else on the planet, so bring-on Superman and consort now to do your computing…

Looks like they DIDN’T rewrite the book after all. But i’m SURE now, “In the context of” is also a “KPP tresherold” of sort.

Ho NO they didn’t SAY that either you understand, “KPP tresherold“…

Naturaly the targets reported here by and incompetent journalist ARE KPP tresherolds and the aircraft will be returned to its manufacturer if it doesn’t meet them as being MINIMUM because you understand they didnt KNOW their designed Mach limits there either.

OK DUCKY… Where’s Capt’ain America?

It’s the third time: I’m not from US! So cut the bull**** with Captain America and try to be polite. Barry is right, you don’t act like a 51 years old man.

I don’t subscribe at LM/USAF supercruise definition. It reflects the capability of their top fighter.

Now about Grippen NG: SAAB declared they expected to supercruise at 1.1M. Above 1.1M, it will cruise with AB. What’s so hard to understand?

=obligatory;1350792]I missed that one, do you have a link for it ?
i found this: Combat Radius (NM)
Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 260+100nm 310+100nm
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

I said: 400 Nmiles total combat radius, including 100 Nmiles in sc. I only missed by 10 Nmiles since the offical figure is 410. This means a total of 100 in sc towards the combat area + 100 Nmiles in sc exiting the combat area + ~50 miles on combat area. So, in total we got 250 Nmiles spent in supercruise + 620 Nmiles in subsonic cruise (310 cruising towards the target + 310 coming back).

Beside that, its missing the discussion on time at supersonic speed.

I found only distance data about f 22. Please feel free to post anything you got on supercruise distance (estimations) of the Grippen NG .

And the only thing to support F-22 on time at supersonic speed is a set of mantra’s that were introduced when F-22 itself were introduced.
We’ve all read them:

I showed in example how to calculate burn rate but its still an option to stick with mantra’s for those who so wish. Aviation is, after all, a quasi-religion.

Well if supercuising at 1.6-1.7M is the same thing as “supercruising” at 1.1M, you can say that the F 22=Grippen, if that will relax you. 😀

No the worst drag region is Mach ~0.95-~1.05
-which i believe is the reason F-15/16 didn’t qualify for the title
Lordasap and others has a more precise definition but i’m not gonna study that’un

No, the Grippen might be supercrusing at 1.1M but it is still in the high drag region.