I don’t think there is a chance that Brazil could co develop the Gripen NG. As some say the prototype has already been flying. If you look carefully at the drawing where you see the planned shared participation of Brazil/Sweden/South Africa, you see things that are already developped.

To me this drawing only shows which parts could be manufactured in Brazil, and not co-developped by Brazil. Or else why would there be a brazilian flag on the “airframe” or “landing gear” or “eletrical system” parts? Those are ready and flying already.

Nic

my opinion, rafale were designed as a self escorting low level bomber, when designed that was the doctrin, the intakes were put within the body line looking from above, so giving a better rcs from that view
but lets all put a bit if reality in this, rafale, ef gripen sh etc are all rcs measured in + meters, when in a typical combat load

Well if it’s designed for being looked at from above, then stores become a bit less of an issue. You’re going to be looking at 2 wingtip Micas, and the tip of 2 2000L tanks which can be treated with RAM, and in a 1st day of war scenario the tip of 2 SCALP, which are designed to be stealthy.

Nic

Rafale +1. Re. F-18 what doesn’t look better?

The F-18F looks ok when ladden.

Nic

i dont know how to say it any clearer, we have done a MLU, its done finished, they are probably the most advanced fa18ab’s

If those Hornets were enough then why the need for the SH as a stopgap?

I personally think the RAAF could have done with just retiring the F111 and jumping directly to the JSF.

Now IF numbers were considered too low, then surely it would have been cheaper to lease some Gripens than to buy those SH and the infrastructure to support them.

Nic

as if you would know how much it costs
the MLU was also answered on the last page, you dont even bother to read the posts and just seem to troll nonsense

frankly i cant see an aussie pilots wanting to swap even the 25 yr old fa-18b+ for a rafale, as our fa-18b+ has better radar, better weapons, a hms and decent ew for a start

Sweden paid 3,9 SEK to update 31 airframes from A/B to C/D status. That’s 611 million AUD for 31 airframes…

Secondly I have no clue why you talk about this switching from Hornets to Rafales. I haven’t mentionned Rafale a single time in here nor have I ever thought it being a realistic (or even desireable) choice for the RAAF? Now you’re the one I’d accuse of trolling :confused:

As if you didn’t write it… :rolleyes:

haha I loved it when he said he “quickly” went over the article. As if…

Nic

Edit: I reckon that it is the very first aircraft article that actually talks about (and tries to down) another article from a different journalist. I hope it doesn’t set a precedent in aviation “journalism”. Absolutely no fact, it just downs Collin’s article and provide hearsay about the Rafale. Unsurprising coming from Jackonicko Lake.

1. The F-111 doesn’t fly into combat unescorted, so it’s range is restricted to whatever it’s escorting fighters can manage. The Super Hornet has a better range than legacy Hornets. Given this scenario, the Super Hornet most definitely CAN replace the F-111.

Additionally the Super Hornet provides increased air to air combat capability, that the F-111 never could.

2. RAAF is purchasing these things called air to air refuellers. Apparently they have a remarkable ability to extend the range of aircraft.

3. ADF is purchasing long ranged standoff weapons. Weapons that are difficult and costly to integrate onto the F-111, but easily integrated onto a modern aircraft such as a Hornet or Super Hornet. The Royal Australian Navy will also get very long ranged cruise missiles in coming years.

These decisions effectively increase the ADF’s strike capacity beyond anything the F-111 was ever able to achieve…

So a Super Hornet can’t replace the strike capability of the F-111, but a Gripen can?

Give me a break…

Who said a Gripen could do what a SH can’t? I’d say it would make a cheaper stopgap as
1. It could be rented.
2. It has a much lower logistical footprint than the SH.

I doubt 24 airframes would cost any where near 6 billion AUS$ to operate for 10 years. (by the way the cost of upgrading 24 A/B airframes to C/D standard would be ~ 475million AUD).

Nic

The F18F’s were a stopgap replacement for the F-111’s. They required something insane like 170-180 hours of maintenance per flight hours. It was probably cheaper to replace them with the F18F’s then to keep them in service another 5-6 years.

Plus the early replacement of the F-111’s means that the F/A-18’s can be withrawn earlier, removing the need to carry out CBR on most of the fleet.

I don’t see how the SH can replace the F111. Granted it can replace the legacy Hornets, but to replace the 111 you need a Su34. The rest won’t really take up the role.

Which leaves you either legacy Hornets or a new type. Why not rent the surplus gripen instead?

Nic