FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The operating range is the range specified for normal operation. It seems the Gripen doesn't have long legs but then again for its primary operator, it doesn't need long legs.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The operating range is the range specified for normal operation. It seems the Gripen doesn't have long legs but then again for its primary operator, it doesn't need long legs.Joe
what does 'operating range' (3,000kms) mean? Is that the range with the Gripen tanking as much fuel as it can carry + an in-flight? The two figures (operating range and unrefueled combat radius) seem enormously disparate.
I'm not sure that's the point that puts the Gripen out of favour
It's a new bird so time will tell but Sweden can get pretty chilly too, don't forget they have Barents Sea defence commitments and they are by no means sunny climes.
I believe the Grippen NG's range without drop tanks is better then the F-16
I'm going to guess that they will take the most modern frame with the most versatility preferably with 2 engines much like they did when ordering the F18, when they started the competition for the aircraft to replace the 104/101 combo they were leaning toward the F17If they do that, it's a great thing IMO. It's silly to see half of precious hard points occupied by drop tanks on today's fighters - just take a look on Rafale, or F-16 pictures.
The ability to carry a lot of fuel is one more thing I like at Su-27 family; F-15E with CFT comes close too.
The F-15SE's still $100 million, compared to the $54 million of the Super Hornet and the max $61 million of the Gripen. The Eurofighter's only $84 million, around $89 CDN. Still too expensive most likely, but still cheaper. The more I look at it, the Gripen's probably too short range and limited for Canadian use.
As most of you will know, Canada's combat aircraft fleet consists of CF-18s, which are now up to F-18C/D standard. We don't deploy them outside of Canada much, but as they are aging, I'm wondering what people's thoughts (who are more knowledgeable than I) are on whether or not we should consider replacing them before the F-35 comes into being. We are a "Level 3" Partner in the project, though I'm not sure what exactly that means, and are projected to contribute between US$4.8 billion and US$6.8 billion (from Wiki). Do you think we'll end up even buying the F-35, or should we go for something cheaper like the Gripen?
Funnily enough, the RAAF is in the exact same situation. Our Hornets are now 25+ years old and our F-111's are to be retired this year. To fill in the gap left by the F-111's and the fact that the F35 won't enter service with the RAAF for some time yet, the Government has aquired 24 Super Hornets to plug the gap. Obviously the need to have an interim aircraft is not the ideal situation to be in, but atleast if there are further delays with the F35, we will already have the required back up and support equipment to change over to a wholly Super Hornet fleet.
Maybe the CAF will follow a similar path?
Now that we speak about prices, is there a credible source that lists the prices of new a/c?
And comes from where?Note that the USN claims that F-35C operating costs are predicted to be 40% higher than the current fleet a/c.
*When people say: "we have F-18A-D, so let's buy F-18E now since it's about the same pane", it makes me laugh. Engine, radar whole avionics suite, hull, wings, LERX, tail, even missiles it uses are different. It's same as if someone says that MiG-25 and MiG-31 are about the same planes.