The IRIS-T is slaved to the Cobra IMHD, which is avaliable as an option in the export version of the Gripen(JAS 39C/D). South Africa will be the first to get it when they take delivery of their Gripens in 2007. Although the SAAF uses the (excellent) A-Darter, not the IRIS-T.

The off-boresight capability of the IRIS-T is at least +/- 90 degrees

I read that the Rafale had(has?) a doubling time of 0.7 seconds, the Gripen 0.4 seconds and Eurofighter 0.3 seconds. The numbers were posted in the Swedish “Mach” magazine sometime in the mid 90’s. What is the doubling time for the Mirage 2000?

What is written in this article? Can anyone translate? http://www.krone.at/index.php?http://wcm.krone.at/krone/S25/object_id__55899/hxcms_popup/index.html

Is the Austrian parlament is cancelling the Eurofighter? :confused:

Hope these will do!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/pregripen.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/pregripen1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/pregripen2.jpg

I’d be surprised if modern fighters like the Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen etc cannot sustain flight at 60deg AoA. I know it’s no problem for the Gripen. It’s probably not so much the overall aerodynamics, even if it plays a part, but inlet design and the engines ability to continue working when it’s fed turbulent air. I remember talking to an SF37 Viggen pilot, he almost had a compressor stall when he accidently pulled more than 35 deg/AoA during a mock dogfight. So, the Viggens AoA limitation had to do with the ability of the RM8A, and not so much with the aerodynamics of the airplane itself, which probably stalled out at 36 deg/AoA. 😉

From what I understand, unstable canard equipped fighters has better control authority compared to an unstable aft-tail design. Instead of forcing the tail down decreasing overall lift, the canard lifts the nose, increasing overall lift. Also, a canard equipped plane can be built with a higher degree of instability than a conventional plane.

Sweden chose the delta/canard configuation for the Gripen because it offered very low supersonic drag. Also, the canards in conjunction with the main wings slats and elevons offered excellent turning performance and low landing speeds.

I wouldn’t say the was F-104 anymore dangerous than fighters of the same generation, especially if it was used in its intended role, intercepting bombers at very high speeds. Which it probably did better than the other contemporary fighters. What the F-104 had against it, is that it was probably too specialized. The Mirage, Draken and MiG-21 I think has proven to be more flexible in coping with changing threats.

Just my opinion.