Having grown, changed the proportions of its fuselage somewhat, got a new air intake, new wing, new engine, new avionics, moved its canards forward – wait – it’s a new plane! 😀

I agree! The only similarity between the J-10 and the Lavi is the delta/canard configuration and the position of the air intake. It’s definitely a new plane.

Such an awesome looking fighter!:)

You are comparing apples with oranges. F-16MLU is comparable to Gripen A/B

Hmm, I believe that with its modern infrastructure, TIDLS, sensor fusion and MMI, I would say the A/B Gripen is much superior to the Block 50 F-16C. Not in A2G ordnance carrying ability, but pretty much at everything else. After all, it’s a 4th generation aircraft, the F-16 is not.

How is the Grippens reliability record? … they had a pretty poor display in zeltweg last year… one had to land immediately.

Since the first flight of the prototype Gripen in 1988 there have been four crashes. Two during the development phase(39-1 and 39102). The third crash (39156) was caused by wake turbulence and low altitude during ACM. The fourth crash(39184) is till under investigation, but the cause is known. So, four crasches in 19 years. Pretty good I think!

During the Red Flag Alaska earlier this year, Gripens flew 346 hours over 225 flights. The total avaliability was 99%. Four flights were cancelled due to bad weather which grounded the entire 35th Air Expeditionary Wing. And another flight was cancelled because of a faulty Litening pod(nothing wrong with the aircraft).

I also find the 2000 $ per hour statement a bit of a stretch… can anybody tell me what is exactly included in that.

It’s the operational cost.

General Jan Jonsson said that with 10,000 hours of operational experience behind it, Sweden’s Gripen fleet was currently costing $2500 per flying hour, and by 2003 that will have fallen to the desired level of $2000. The above statement was made back in the year 2000.

From http://www.gripen.com

Competitor data is obtained from public domain sources such as seminars, internet sites and contractor briefings. The result shows Gripen’s operational costs are 50 per cent lower than its closest competitor. This is because Gripen is nearly twice as reliable, uses less fuel, is easier to repair, requires fewer personnel, fewer spares, less ground support equipment and less maintenance.

I think Croatia should go with the Gripen. It is a truly modern 4th generation multirole fighter that is continuously evolving. And it will do so for the next 30-40 years. The Gripen is fully NATO compatible, and it is equipped with the worlds most advanced datalink system, the TIDLS.

IIRC. the NORA aswell as IR-OTIS will be avaliable to export costumers by early January 2007.

Some Gripen info.

A hot engine change can be made in 45 minutes by a team of three.

10 maintenance hours per flight hour, includes all depot level maintenance.

Twice as reliable as its competitors.

Twice as easy to repair.

Enough ground equipment to support four Gripens can be carried by a single C-130 Hercules.

The Gripen can be refuled and rearmed in less than 10 minutes.

An airborn time of 60 seconds is possible when on high alert with the APU running, all systems fully avaliable 10 seconds after take off. The F-16 needs 3-4 minutes, and its INS and radar will not be fully avaliable.

Gripen mean time between failures(MTBF) is proven to be 7.6 hours. USAF best MTBF is 4.1 hours.

The Gripen costs less than 2000$ per flight hour.

Airframe life is 8000 hours.

On a CAP 385km from base, a Gripen can stay on station for two hours carrying 2X AMRAAM, 2X AIM-9 and 2X droptanks.

When carrying 3X 1000lbs GBU-16 on a LO-LO-LO strike profile, the Gripen has a mission radius of 648km. With 2X GBU-16’s and extra fuel tanks radius increases to 833km.

Ferry range is 3500km according to Col Jan Jonsson of the Swedish Air Warfare Center.

The Gripen can accelerate from M 0,5 to M 1,1 in 30 seconds.

The Gripen can sustain M 1,1 using dry thrust, while carrying a droptank and AAM’s.

The Gripen can operate from 800m long and 9m wide roadstrips. Take off and landing distances can be down to 400-350 meters.

It could also be fuel from the fuel dump vent.

It looks very ungainly – like a modernized Yak-141.

The Yak-141 was no beauty, but it’s all relative. The Yak-141 and F-35 IMO suffer from the same problem in terms of looks, their wings are too small.

On the other hand, not even the big wing F-35C can be considered a beauty. Except when seen from directly above, then it looks kinda cool.:)