Navalising the Hawk involved a major re-design in many areas. The Gripen, as the Saab press release says, is already designed for high controllability at slow speeds, high sink rates, low approach speeds etc. Seems to me that the Gripen is half way there, and the amount of work involved would actually be less than the Hawk required.
Reply With Quote

well, wait and see…

russian aircraft also had good slow speed controllability, high sink rates, solid airframes etc.. and yet, they’re not exactly the cream of the crop in naval aviation today…

if it was that simple, how is it possible that nobody managed to make a succesful naval fighter out of terrestrial aircraft (F-18 being completely redesigned, there’s little to talk about in the way “navalizing” )? USA had plenty of competent people to build naval aircraft and plenty of experience about naval operations and yet, even in the US no terrestrial aicraft ever managed to become a successful fighter from a carrier… not one…

if saab finds somebody naive enough to believe the claim of “cheap/almost ready/world beater/navalized gripen” version, good for them… I’d be curious to see what they do with it

it’s for reaching warp 7 speeds… 😀

Why don’t the Europeans just walk away if they do not like it. They won’t because there is nothing that is comparable to the F 35 in their stables capability wise.

several of them committed quite a lot of money to it (british the most) so the politician who decides to walk away from it should really have a good case, or he’s finished

Besides, usually, the politicians are anything but aeronautical specialists, so, chances are big that they just believe it will be the world beater they were promised to get in the first place, if nothing else, because it costs so much… add some magical words like “stealth”, 5th gen (alone with the F22), for example and you won’t hear much from them…

so if BAe is out of the game, what would they bring to Sea Gripen then?

as for ski jump take-offs, as said in the other sea gripen thread, the loadout would be extremely limited, which would make it even less interesting as a solution…

Er, just for information, what does BAe do in the gripen?

What kind of experience has SAAB regarding Carriers?

in one word:

none

and if you want a complete explanation:

none

😀

and to refuel up there you use what aircraft?

With STOBAR, the only one you’d have that may take off from the carrier would be the gripen, and you can’t load it heavily or it will become really wet in there… 😉

@ Ponen

well, ok, these do carry aircraft… 😀

For carrier building, yes, India do build (or rebuild would be more correct) carriers, but, again, unless I’m mistaken, they’re still learning about it. The french made a few of these during the last century and even if the partnership with UK was done for the 2nd carrier, they are pretty able to make new ones.

Anyway, what I was saying was: which country can propose the carrier and the aircraft to put on it?

US, Russia (technically at least) and France… and, between the two “serious” possibilities, it seems to me that France has the edge right now (pretty important partnership with brasil at this moment)

And i would imagine that you had access to any official Eurofighter GMBH proposal and compare it with any official Dassault documentation…

er, no, just to official prices paid by various nations buying it… and as for its capabilities, just reread this thread, missions capabilities of each of these two have been said ad nauseum… A2A with some A2G still in development for EF and still evolving, but much more versatile platform for the rafale… completely different stuff (even Jackonicko doesn’t deny this 😉 )