QUOTE(ayanami_tard @ Feb 4 2017, 03:18 PM)
no not really
believe it or not gripen was developed as a trainer/light attack aircraft as well,back when they were considering F-16 and even F/A-18, before they went back to the drawing board and decided they wanted a proper fighter instead
the only reason why FA-50 aren't as advanced as Gripen (especially latter variant) is that the korean wanted them more as secondary fighter and not as their top line fighter, but i believe it can be further developed to match gripen (especially if it used better engine like eurojet or F414). even as it is now in term of performance, it already close to gripen
swingrole (which is just added aspect of multirole capability) depends largely on the avionics. As it is today, FA-50 use APG-67, similar to older F-16 but with APG-83 and Litening pod, it could do the same
rtaf will operate T-50 as well (as well as gripen), so we can see how big it is side by side with gripen when they got it
There is a reason y I write Sweden AF strategic requirements.
Gripen project are based on a requirements to replace the draken and viggen as well as it have to be smaller than viggen, capable of land and takeoff on a 800m runway, capable of carrying 5-6tons of payload.
Early proposal was it have to fill in both trainer and attack role.
In 1979 the sweden name it JAS "jakt (a2a) attack (a2s) spaning (recon)" which indicates it swing role capability.
Thus these is a huge difference in designing the aircraft concepts.
Also fa50 does not have close performance in term of c
Combat radius fa50 have less than 500km as to gripen 800km
Ferry range fa50 less than 2000km as to gripen a near 3000km and could reach 3500km with drop tank.
Payload fa50 capable only of 3000+kg iinm as to gripen 5300kg.
Military Thread V23 
Nov 25 2016, 09:22 AM
Quote
0.1055sec
1.31
7 queries
GZIP Disabled