Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sukhoi-30mki
The Gripen also has considerable foreign content- a radar developed with French help and an American engine. Those governments can deny export licenses during critical negotiations. Countries have done that before.

That would leave only the French and the Russians, because the french would not impose sanctions, just jack up the price. For the stated aim of replacing the Mig 21, its great, but as you say, other considerations would put it at the bottom of the heap, along with the F-18.

How do the costs compare, the Gripen v/s the Eurofighter and the Russians?

23 posted on 09/29/2008 8:52:36 AM PDT by IndianChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: IndianChief

The Gripen has a great advantage on initial and life-cycle costs. The Eurofighter is probably the most expensive jet in the competition and the fact that it’s producers will most probably cut orders is not going to help it. The Mig looks like a no-show given the current chill in Indo-US ties as well as the unpalatable scenario of having three Russian systems (SU-30/fifth-gen. fighter and Mig-35) at the same time.

My own preference would have been the Gripen, but I assume that the Super-Hornet is a front runner for political and commercial reasons.Can’t rule out the Rafale too.


24 posted on 09/30/2008 5:54:51 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson