That’s what I want to know, too. Why would there be signatures on an English version? I don’t believe the report was written in English. It has to be a translation of a report written in one or more of the official languages of Switzerland IMO (or a fake).

in the rafales made for french forces by a french company with french instruments, everything is written in english… maybe a fake aircraft? :p

Switzerland has 4 spoken languages. in which will you write the report? Or do you write four reports in four different languages?

why is the gripen in this report refered to as the both the best and worst after 59 upgrades? doesnt make sence…

it does.

“best” is about the amount of improvement it represents from the version they start with (basically, it will be much more improved than the Rafale that has much less modifications announced)

“worst” is about its overall performace which remains insufficient in every aspect and the lowest of all three contenders. In other words, even if it makes the most improvements compared with the C/D version, it startes so low that it can’t reach a sufficient level.

For the sake of illustration, here’s an example (fictional values)

Imagine that:

– the rafale is starting @ 100 pts and gets 20 pts improvement (final score 120),

– Typhoon starting @ 70 pts and getting 30 pts improvement (final score 100),

– Gripen starting at 50 and getting 40 pts improvement (final score 90),

in the end (in that example), the gripen made the most progress (“best” in that regard) but remained the least performer of the three (“worst” in that regard)

well, more than just comparing to Rafale and Typhoon, the main point is that the Gripen, even in its proposed evolved form, never reaches the “Minimum expected capability”

so, basically, regardless of what they do price-wise, it wont perform up to the tasks they expect it to do, even with proposed upgrades

Considering that point, I can’t really grasp how they could manage to declare it “suitable”, as it doesn’t fulfill any role as they expect it to do. I can understand that they might want to keep other candidates a little under pressure price-wise, but the way it backfired on them may dissuade the Swiss Air Force to make the same mistake again

In any case, it would seem that that leak will not be very appreciated by Ulli Maurer and those who, with him, have chosen the Gripen, and it may very well bury the whole ongoing process, probably giving way to another one, not unlike the “new tankers deal” in India… and I’m ready to bet that on that one, we won’t see the Gripen shortlisted…

So why bash your head against the wall, you have already said no alternative ? Oh wait you rolled your eyes at the end of that:rolleyes:

So tell me the alternative ? Because all I have seen is **** throwing against the JSF and not one single realistic alternative ?

a realistic alternative would be to cancel it, make a new competition for introduction in, say, 10-12 years from now with a fixed price contract for a naval/air force aircraft.

Dropping a STOVL requirement or, at most, if some users really do need that capacity, develop a Harrier derivative that would have various improvements that may be interesting but without unnecessary gadgets like being supersonic (it’s supposed to be STOVL to operate near the battlefield, so no need to fly fast for longer distances or beign particularily stealthy – basically, it’s supposed to do mostly a helicopter job, just and with some A/A capabilities) which would allow for a more cost effective solution in the end.

In the end, you’d have an aircraft with less compromises built in as it won’t need to satisfy too many contradictiong requirements and would be more compatible with today’s knowhow from various manufacturers

just a small detail

rafael is israeli avionics manufacturer

rafale is the french fighter

I doubt it….for various reason.
Is there any confirmation that Rafale-M can take-off from a STOBAR carrier??
I very much doubt that with a low 75kN thrust engine Rafale-M would be able to take-off from a STOBAR carrier with any meaningful load, if at all it is able to take-off. Maybe its possible with a 90kN thrust engine in the future. Were as the MiG-29K as we speak today is cleared for STOBAR with a 5,500Kg payload.

btw, when can we see the 90kN thrust engine in Rafale? Hope IAF version is coming with that engine.

Another quote from the article.

I’m not sure of this is Navy’s official statement and if the said requirement is for land-basing (to replace IAFs maritime Jaguar) or if it is meant for the carrier.

These 60 aircrafts could also be the NLCA. If not, then the other two likely options are…

MiG-29K/M
a) Very high commonality with Naval & Land variant – change of hook/drag chute underneath the fuselage makes it a land or carrier variant! (if the a/c is already with fold-able wings)
b) A case in point is the loss of MiG-29KUB recently. They fitted the land-based 967 with hook and aircraft was back on the carrier deck to fill the place of the lost 947.
c) Current RD-33MK variant is with 88kN thrust and in 2013 Russian Navy is to get their MiG-29K with an improved variant, RD-33MKM, with ~95kN thrust.
c) Pocket friendly, training & support infrastructure already available.

Rafale-M
a) AFAIK, land and naval variants have different landing gears & arresting mechanism.
b) 75kN is low and 90+kN would be a good bet for any STOBAR operation.
b) Heavy on pocket. More than double the cost of MiG-29K (& NLCA)

ok, first of all, the Mig29K was reinforced (structure, landing gear, etc….) much more than simply “adding a hook”

second, it has 9-ton engines but weighs empty around 13 tons, so, basically it can carry something like 5 tons to get to a 1:1 T/W ratio.

The rafale M weighs empty about 10 tons, so with 7.5-ton engines, it can carry 5 tons as well to be just at the 1:1 T/W ratio

basically, it’s the same as the Mig29K in that regard

Fixed it for you 😉

oh? you mean germany, like one of the partners who doesn’t want to buy the last batch they contractually have to buy or pay penalties to the Typhoon builder? like one of the partners who drags its feet when there’s a need to finance some more or less “basic” developments, like the AESA radar, A2G weapons integration (just to make it really a multirole aircraft) and, overall anything that has to be paid for?

had the Typhoon benefitted of the commitment of its originating nations the way the rafale did (even with all the delays due to the government shifting budgets elsewhere) it most certainly would have been a much more evolved aircraft than what it is now, instead being limited to A2A and carrying a few bombs around

if he knows anything about french political climate…. no, he won’t 😀