And the Tu-144 didn't?
In theory, certainly. But unfortunately (I'd like to see it - call it Kraken?) it is probably not cost-effective. What would it cost to develop? What are the potential sales? I think the balance between the answers to those questions is unfavourable.
Not the early models, but later ones did.
Yaah. Pretty quick from rollout to flight. Whatever ones opinion of the aircraft, it's hard not to think the programme's well managed.Wihu!
I think most people are astounded that a nation as small as sweeden can produce a fighter as capable as Gripen, and it is a very capable platform. But when the Sweedish fanboys come out of the woodwork claiming that its comperable (or even better in some cases) than a 5th gen platform such as the F-35 then some members tend to get a bit narky, mainly because their arguments are rarely unbiased and logical.hey.
its quite funny to read, about all the creativity to misscredit the gripen plattform. over and over againt.
first, it had to small legs, not enough payload. and so on.
and now when those things are fixed, in the Gripen NG,
they´re desperate to find something els to talk down the plattform, its like Sweden just cant make a supreme fighter. because its sweden and not america.
Its actually quite simple:
No, for the most part they need to develop the technology themselves, with less money, less experiance and arguably less expertise, and then make up a 10 year gap while the US does nothing in terms of AESA development.
So you think anyone who can not produce an AN/APG-81 in the same timeframe as LM are idiots? What logic is that based on my friend? Doesn't sound like any to me.
Hi,hey.
its quite funny to read, about all the creativity to misscredit the gripen plattform. over and over againt.
first, it had to small legs, not enough payload. and so on.
and now when those things are fixed, in the Gripen NG,
they´re desperate to find something els to talk down the plattform, its like Sweden just cant make a supreme fighter. because its sweden and not america.
regarding the radar, its noway near to be finished yet. and i´ve a hard time to believe, SAAB goes for the second best.
i bet, when NG enter service aruond 2015, it will not be a second hand degraded less technology version of the AESA. compared to F-35
the technology is there, they just need to adapt it.
but its just my view, and honestly im not an expert on radar systems but SAAB/Ericsson aint idiots either.
Interesting, I didin't know this much, but yeah, Switzerland seems bagged. Personally I hope and see possible, with the little knowledge I have, that Brazil, Netherlands and Denmark could opt for Gripen.
JSF has already been chosen for the Netherlands.
OK, cheers.
Norway and Netherlands picked it for capability reasons. Their responses have been pretty clear on that.
I see India as a potentail buyer for Gripen. The MMRCA is in order to replace Indias fleet of Mig 21s. If India chooses Gripen they will get full technology transfer which is perfect for India because of Indias ambition to be self sufficient but also establish itself as a supplier of state of the art fighter aircrafts. The Kaveri engine would fit Gripen IF it good enough that is. Saab will probably have the best offset offering because of it's belonging in the Wallenberg sphere (Saab, ABB, Ericsson, Electrolux etc). This matters in India, especially now... The Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) project is for a larger aircraft like the planned SU PAK-FA.
Yup, I have talked with some of the Danish F-16 pilots, they all want to fly JSF in the future, if they could choose.
Conserning Norway, I read this respons to their respons on why they didn't pick the Gripen.