Except they only have 14 A-4s (of which 12 modernised), & they have 60 AMX (& can get more if they want) – which are also newer, & which they built & can modify themselves.

BTW, why do you think that it would be possible to put an afterburning M88 into the Brazilian A-4s? There’s 50 cm of extra length to cope with. The exhaust pipe is narrower than the main body of the engine. Are you sure you can fit an M88 AB in there? And if you omit the afterburner, there’s no thrust increase.

the fuselage length should be sufficient, as for the width, some works would be necessary (obviously, you won’t just slide the new engine inside) but I guess that may be doable…

in any case, their skyhawks wouldn’t replace their fleet of AMX, unless they manage to buy a good bunch more (malaysian maybe) and overhaul and adapt them, but they may increase the duration and improve somewhat the capabilities of their carrier

it has all the radio equipment it needs:

http://avionique.free.fr/spip.php?article657

😉

not a chance, especially not at such a price… if they’re too short on money, they’ll use them as such or mothball them for the time being.

they are already short of aircraft, especially fighters, as pilots coming out of training end up flying UAVs for a couple of years prior to getting into a cockpit, and most upgrades are done during maintenance when parts have to be changed anyway

they obviously are…. where would dassault get 2nd hand rafales from?

Because it was given outside the official tender.

the “official tender” was for an off the shelf aircraft, available immediately, so considering that the aircraft chosen (still to be developed and available only in several years) was out of the official tender from the beginning (only a politicians’ talk made it in by changing the terms of the tender which would be illegal in any civilized country) anybody is free to propose what they want, and the commission is most certainly in position to consider any offer, since the rules are obviously changing as swiss politicians want

We agree on that Spitfire9, for Dassault, that would be an interesting deal, and even for the other two it may be interesting as well, UAE could get rid of Mirages and get the Rafales at a good price (economies of scale for Dassault making that possible) and rather rapidly (france would gladly delay its orders to save some cash right now, and, possibly even lease some of its own rafales for the time being to the UAE to accelerate deliveries (french air force may not appreciate so much of course, but it’s another story 😉 ), while dassault would certainly increase the production rate to allow the UAE to replace their mirages more rapidly) and Brasil could get more time (less money to spend right now when they are somewhat short on cash or, at least, now that politically they can’t justify a big spending for new fighters), maintain FAB’s capability at a sufficient level during the transition period and buy (actually, “pay” ) the new fighters a few years later when their economical situation get a bit more favorable… In the same time, they could allow the industry some time to get equipped, trained and build the infrastructures they’ll need for the ToT to work.

If you present the whole deal as one, with a clear and credible timetable, I doubt that either the brasilian industry nor the FAB would be so upset…. For them all it would be a big step forward from the hesitations and delays they’ve been stuck with for years…

this does not holds any water.
its verfied gripen DEMO tests that, with one drop tank (450 Gal) gives the Gripen DEMO an extra range of approximately 1000 km (subsonic). that means lesser fuelburn than expected
The only way this holds any water is the fact the Demo A/C is equipped for the F414, less efficient intakes for 1,4mach+.
But that have nothing to do with e E/F modell, only the current Demo A/C

you misunderstood my post…

Spitfire 9 wondered how an engine with a “known fuel burn rate” can have a higher consumption than anticipated. My post was an answer to him pointing to the fact that the fuel burn rate for an engine is known only for a given airframe, as if you put it into another one with different characteristics (air intakes shaping, aerodynamics of the airframe etc…), the engine won’t necessarily burn fuel at the particular rate you calculated before…

Considering the gripen, if they realized that the fuel burn rate is higher than expected, that only shows that someone didn’t do his homework properly. In any case, the claim “it’s just the demo, don’t bother, the final aircraft will do” is the same song F-35 people were singing for the last 10-15 years… not a convincing argument, as far as I’m concerned…

The Dassault offer has to be ignored anyway.

ah? why is that?