Or not. Demands for carrier capability did have an effect on the Rafale design, which given everyone elses prime role for the fighter as AtA was probably not optimal.

That’s before we get into the laughable conditions the French set for the project, French design, mostly french built with smatterings of sub contract work for the others. Not exaclt condusive to co-operation.

In any case, the politics of industry intrudes on the F-35, with BAE systems building parts of the F-35 down south in England and Rolls Royce building the LiftFan system for every F-35B, source code or no, it would be difficult to not buy the aircraft having that elvel of industrial involvement. Indeed it can be argued that British companies are getting more bang for their government’s £2 billion worth R&D stake.

Did the french plan to forbid access to source codes for the partners? 😮

Nic

Well, the USA reneged on its undertakings once before, hence the fuss a few years ago. Perhaps it’s now reneged on what was agreed in 2007, though since the exact terms (i.e. what we were supposed to get access to) remain secret, one can’t be sure.

We should never have got involved. 🙁 I don’t know how good a Super Harrier could have been, or how much it would have cost, but either it, or a catapult-launched non-US fighter, looks as if it may have been a better option for the RN. Maybe Italy & Spain could have been persuaded to join a Super Harrier project, using Harrier systems (e.g. Blue Vixen) initially. But probably not.

I wonder what would have happened if the UK had tried to interest the other Eurofighter partners in a Replica Eurofighter? The latter could have been just an airframe development project, wrapped around Eurofighter engines & systems. Ah well, too late now.

Or you guys could have listened to the french when developing the Eurofighter: ie a more multirole and carrier capable design :diablo:

Nic

And most of the systems have already been developed….

So what is there for the brazilians to codevelop?

You guys can’t have it both ways!

Nic

I think the Gripen NG is a whole new beast compared to the C/D, which was IMHO more comparable to a Mirage 2000-9 than to a Rafale. However the NG seems to be more in the Eurocanards club.

My beef with the Gripen NG is that people give it the inherent qualities of the Gripen (low cost) while it’s development isn’t over yet.
– On the one hand some say it’s not a paper plane because a prototype is flying
– On the other hand people say it’s not developped yet so the brazilians could be actively involved in the development of the Gripen NG.

Then how is it? Is it developped or is it yet to develop? And how comes that this development is cheap enough to warrant the same low cost than the earlier Gripens?

The most expensive stuff in a plane is the avionics/systems. However they are mostly new. How could a new Gripen with a AESA, an IRST, and plenty of other new avionics come at a remotely similar cost to the older Gripen?

Nic

Hmm this F16 looks like dead meat to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sypS-GeDWSo&feature=fvw

:diablo:

A friend of mine who used to be a Mirage 2000 pilot told me that BVR the Mirage 2000 was about equal with the F16MLU. He also said that the 2000 couldn’t compete in bvr when the MLU used the link 16.

WVR it’s pretty much like this greek pilot said.

Nic

The Gripen mafia is almost as bad as the Rafale mafia!

Nice to see you Robban ^^

Nic

It’s a pity then.

I see no point aquiring a Rafale if it is limited to light AtoA loadouts, so a Hornet would be a MUCH better (versatile) choice than a Rafale to operate from the Sao Paolo (and it cost me to say that).

converting Sao Paolo to be able to receive Rafales at close to MTOW, or ordering a M88-90KN version would prove much more expensive.

Nic