luckyyy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,337
- Reaction score
- -1
Basically, all important points!
1) Flight performance - Light single engine fighter vs. medium twin engine fighters (especially with more than A2A loads)
Flight performance of Gripen is as good as rafale/Eurofighter , more than A2A loads of rafale/Eurofighter will be compromise by the fuel weight to burn two engines then one........
2) Development status - Prototype stage vs. operational versions that needs no airframe changes and just minor upgrades
don't matter , Gripen NG is not a new platform but a improvment over Gripen C/D..
3) ToT - All major parts from, or under co-development with foreign countries only vs. all major parts developed on their own
but whatven Gripen developed of their own will be given on TOT , and under obligation only 50% offset required which they can fully fullfilled......even rafale/Eurofighter will only giving TOT to the extent of only under contrect obligation...
4) Offsets - Saab aviation is a rather small company and can offer only less offsets vs. EF consortium, or even Dassault
Saab aviation is a rather small company therefore will be easy to manage ...
5) Political, or strategic advantages - None vs. most powerful European countries and defense industries
i didn't see any Political, or strategic advantages with rafale/Eurofighter either..
On pure cost basis, the Gripen is of course a very good fighter, but we need more in different roles and the main aim must be to get as much side advantages, that Saab and Sweden simply can't offer.
then in all the cases GFripen is better placed that Rafale or Eurofighter coz Gripen offers the most side advantages....