And a better question. If the manufacture of the Gripen was to go to the years of R&D and $$$$$$$ to develop a naval version of the Gripen: What nations navy would buy it??????
Jack E. Hammond
.
The Gripen was designed from the start to handle high sink rate touch downs, similar to carrier landings. It’s landing characteristics are excellent, low speed with high precision. The modifications needed to make it navalised wouldn’t be too drastic. According to Saab anyway.
I believe it’s more like a super modified MiG-21. The wing of the JF-17 is strikingly similar to that of the MiG-21. The ailerons and flaps are pretty much identical. Like the MiG-21 the JF-17 wing lacks wing twist. The inner chord has the same angle as the wingtip.
So many HUD shots from so many AFs all over the net. Whats being French got to do with it?
PS- I am not French.
I’ve only seen Mirage 2000 and Rafale HUD shots(and videos) from international exercises with aircrafts of other countries caught in them. I’ve never seen(example) US, british, russian or swedish HUD shots featuring french jets, or jets of other countries in them. I’ve seen the F-22 caught in the HUD of a Super Hornet but that’s US on US.
Any links to these HUD shots from so many AFs all over the net? I have a hard time finding any.


http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1206802172/last-1245957065/Mirage+2000+vs+F-16

http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/ricardo.ricjam/34886/

http://taiwanbbs.org/cgi/index.pl?b=mil,v=print,m=1113496349,a=2
I’m not surprised to see a Typhoon getting “killed” by a Rafale. I’m sure the Rafale has been “killed” by the Typhoon as well during exercises.
I’m more interested in the French fetish of taking HUD shots and posting them all over the internet.
deleted
Well the flight scenes are mostly CGI. And the black Hornet in the movie is definitely CGI.
Gripen needs 2 min to 10000 m and 3 min to 14000 m.
Gripen, from brakes off to 10000m, 1 min 40 secs(same as the JA37). 11000m 2 min, 14000m 3 min.
Not, and by a long shot.

Several data points suggest that Rafale/Typhoon have a better lift to drag ratio:
– Rafale’s low speed performance is slightly superior to the Gripen A/C (approach speed 120 knots vs. 125 knots, minimum speed 80knots),
The Rafale flies a 16 deg/AoA 125 knots approach. The Gripen flies a 14 deg/AoA 125 knots approach.
– Both Rafale & Typhoon have superior supercruise performance (despite what fans say, there is no confirmation that Gripen NG can do Mach 1.2 with a drop tank)
The A/C version Gripen can fly supersonic in dry thrust with a full load of AMRAAM’s, Sidewinders and a drop tank. Why shouldn’t the NG manage to fly M1.2 with the same load with 20% more thrust? Test pilots have noticed that the landing gear farings have actually contributed to overall aerodynamic performance.
some unique maintenance friendly arguments such as the canopy designed to facilitate ejection seat removal.
As TGIF said, the Gripen has the same feature. Side ways hinging canopies doesn’t require the canopy to be removed in order to remove the ejection seat.
nice bits of apparently first hands reports 🙂 Do you know where I could read more of these (in English would be great :o) ? Reading the part regarding the comparison between the 2 planes performance would be awesome 🙂
Sorry, these are words from a friend of mine who’s a Gripen technician, he goes pretty much were the Gripen goes. He praised the Rafale for it’s power and beauty. And the Gripen pilots were having a tough(but fun) time at altitude against the Rafales. They said that they couldn’t shake the Rafale at high altitude. For the Gripen to be more competitive here the F414 is needed. Fitting it into the Gripen NG Demo proved to be rather uncomplicated, so in future we’ll see.
The Gripen mafia is almost as bad as the Rafale mafia!
Nice to see you Robban ^^
Nic
No denying that!
Good to see you also Nicolas! 🙂
Rafale F2 clearly dominated the gripen a few years ago when thet came to Reims. In terms of situational awarness, sensor fusion and power (in the whole flight enveloppe an especially at high altitude) it was outclassed. The report was posted several times here.
A rafale pilot who flew in the gripen back seat compared the gripen to a smaler Mirage 2000-5mk2. They appriciated the gripen ease of use and low maintenance nevertheless.
There was no domination. However the Rafale proved to perform noticably better at high altitude(where the exercise was conducted) thanks to a much healthier thrust/weight ratio. The situtaion awarness of the Rafale is good but it’s not exceeding that of the Gripen. The armament for the Rafale at this time was better. No low or medium alt engagements took place between the Rafale’s and the Gripen’s at this point, so for the Gripen being outclassed is stretching it beyond breaking point.
The Swedish ground crew found it hillarious that the software for the Rafale cockpit displays were windows based, with the classic sky and grass field background during start up! One of the Rafale pilots swore loudly that one had to go three steps back in the menu just in order to change the radio frequency, and then go the three steps forward to continue were you left off.
Surely the Rafale is an outstanding machine, but most of the time the mouth of french aviators are much more outstanding.
Where do you fit the internal weapons?;)
I’ve wondered that too. I’m guessing the semi-stealth means the use of external weapons. It’s such as small aicraft, but maybe it’s possible to squeeze an METEOR or two in somewhere? 🙂
Gripen NG XMLU. 😀
Saabs answer to the J-10B. No, not really. It’s just for fun folks!

Some more vids with 360 turns. 🙂
Rafale protoype http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XFTxUxxv4Q 0:56 – 1:12
F-18 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-n9MgdeiNk 3:56 – 4:18
AJ37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JK3Vx_G2k0 7:17 – 7:38
F-22 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0&feature=related 0:45 – 1:05
Super Hornet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs9m5pGnJHY 2:22 – 2:43
F-15 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0CSsCwhts4&feature=channel 2:47 – 3:09
Su-27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4L9uR3kSDw&feature=related 2:08 – 2:28
F-16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VND2P2GjG8 3:30 – 3:48