Gripen - Red Flag

[Dr Freud]

Detection range? Frontal RCS of JSF is probably at least 20 times smaller than Gripens. The AN/APG-81 also has an aperture diameter that is 100-200 mm larger than Gripens PS-05/A.

So: what would you estimate the effective range for F35 export to detect MIG-29 is than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect F35 export ?.
(* JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.)
F-35exp: the estimated effective range for F35 exp to detect MIG-29 is _ _ _km longer
then the effective range for MIG-29 to detect F35 exp.

Are the USAF inventory comparable with the JAS-39s of Sweden? Are the JAS-39A brand new when this was analysis was made, while the USAF fleet numbers are derived from jets with a higher average age! Are the USAF jets worked harder with more flight hrs on their air frames?

* The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).
From the top of my head, gripen entered service 97, and F18 E/F 98.

So MiG-29 is the benchmark for the 2030+ "Red Air"?
Thought it was the PAK-FA...

I know absolutely zero on capabilities of PAK-FA, so its impossible to use it as benchmark.
If you know, a benchmark with PAK-FA would be most welcome.....

Personally, i dont think any of todays planes or even PAK-FA will be used as benchmark for the 2030+ "Red Air"
I agree with others here the limiting factor with gripen has been range.

 

[Dr Freud]

Finally some insight in N/NG/E/F etc!
thank you both slydog and GD

 

[Black Legion]

* JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
* M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
* F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
* F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.

This is a comparison to what version of the MIG -29?

 

[Grand Danois]

@ Dr Freud.


There is no "export variant." Repeating it doesn't make it true.

There isn't enough data out from the manufacturers to estimate what you request that accurately.

 

[Grand Danois]

From the top of my head, gripen entered service 97, and F18 E/F 98.

And this has what to do with the F-18 being twin-engined? That figure wasn't part of the MTBF numbers. Read your own material!!! The MTBF refer to fleet wide numbers, iirc.

It would be very appropriate if you posted your SOURCE for these numbers.

There isn't enough material on detection range, but:

• AN/APG-81 has a larger aperture diameter than PS-05/A.
  
• AN/APG-81 features better technology than the PS-05/A.
  
• JSF has a massive signature advantage over the MiG-29 and the JAS-39A.

Make your own conclusions.

 

[Dr Freud]

@Black Legion, it was reffering to the basic variant of MIG 29

@Grand Danois, i'm pretty sure you asked if the JAS-39A was brand new when this was analysis was made, while the USAF jets had a higher average age!

"Read your own material!!! The MTBF refer to fleet wide numbers, iirc.
It would be very appropriate if you posted your SOURCE for these numbers."

First, its not exactly my own material, or even my own thoughts, just something i stumbled on while searching on Gripen NG etc, and thought worth sharing here. I tried to point that out with the "....." sign.
Unfortunately i cant find my way back to the swedish airforce estimations right away, i will continue looking if i can find it again tho

 

[Grand Danois]

"Read your own material!!! The MTBF refer to fleet wide numbers, iirc.
It would be very appropriate if you posted your SOURCE for these numbers."

First, its not exactly my own material, or even my own thoughts, just something i stumbled on while searching on Gripen NG etc, and thought worth sharing here. I tried to point that out with the "....." sign.
Unfortunately i cant find my way back to the swedish airforce estimations right away, i will continue looking if i can find it again tho

Fair enough. I've seen those numbers before, but haven't been able to find a reference or context. It would be nice if you were able to dig it up.

 

[Dr Freud]

Fair enough. I've seen those numbers before, but haven't been able to find a reference or context. It would be nice if you were able to dig it up.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1029-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.html
I'm pretty sure this wasnt the site i first found it, but nevertheless, here u got it

btw, can anyone please explain to me what AoA mean ? yeah i know Angle Of Attack, but what does that mean, and what advantages ?

The Gripen can sustain M 1,1 using dry thrust, while carrying a droptank and AAM's. (same source)

 

[SlyDog]

Dr Freud

Angle of attack means the angle aeroplane hold compered to direction of travel.


A picture "says" more than thousand words


Picture

 

[Dr Freud]

Thanks slydog.

"As speed decreases, therefore, angle of attack must increase to maintain the same lift and the same cruising altitude."
This means the aircraft can fly slower, wich is good if you want to land on a short airstrip. It also helps you loiter more efficiently.
It has nothing to do with fighting ability, as has been touted like a mantra.

 

[Dr Freud]

"I pulled out my calc.exe and worked out a few numbers that might be interesting. The F-35/EF numbers come from another place.

The A/B number is time in the air with afterburner.

GRIPEN NG Internal fuel ~6900 lbs
(1xF414)
~22500 lbs A/B Thrust @ 1,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0.180 = 11 min
~15000 lbs Mil Thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0,657 = 40 min
--
Internal + 2 x 1200 L External fuel ~11133 lbs
~22500 lbs A/B Thrust @ 1,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0.291 = ~17,5 min
~15000 lbs Mil Thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr = ~1,060 = ~64 min
(Gripen CAP 90min example)
--
F-35 Internal Fuel ~18,000 lbs
(1 x F135-PW-100)
~43,000 lbs A/B thrust @ ~2.0 lb/lb.hr = ~0.2093 hr = ~12.6 min
~28,000 lbs Mil thrust @ ~0.7 lb/lb.hr = ~0.9184 hr = ~55.1 min

EF Typhoon internal fuel ~10,000 lbs
(2 x EJ200 engine)
~40,500 lbs A/B thrust @ ~1.7 lb/lb.hr = ~0.1452 hr = 8.7 min
~27,000 lbs Mil thrust @ ~0.78 lb/lb.hr = ~0.4748 hr= 28.5 min
----------

Conclusion: On internal fuel only, using afterburner the Gripen NG and F-35 is close but F-35 do win. Gripen is otoh a Mach 2 jet and will travel further and/or faster there. Typhoon is the worst.

In a Mil thrust condition the JSF has significantly better time with 55 min, followed by 40 min on Gripen NG and less than 29 minutes on the Eurofighter Typhoon. But Gripen NG and Typhoon is both supercruise jets (supersonic without A/B) so that number doesn't reveal that much. I'll try to find data for a specific speed and altitude some day..."

I think i have a pretty good situational awareness on Gripen NG (Super Gripen?) now, using TIDLS with internet.
I just hope the guy who wrote this doesnt come here start talking about copyright, lawyers etc...

It just came to me, F22 is stated to supercruise 390 nm radius.

Gripen NG internal fuel~15000 lbs Mil Thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr = ~0,657 = 40 min, Mil thrust = mach 1.1, What would that be in nm ?

I pull out my own calc.exe!
mach 1 = 1224 km/h
1 nm = 1.85 km
mach 1=1224 km/h -mach 1.1=1346 km/h, but Gripen only run 66% of an hour, so 1346x0.66=888 km.
1 nm = 1.85 km, so 888/1.85=480 nm, /2 to get radius= 240 nm radius in supercruise.
With 2 external tanks, if it can supercruise then
1346/1.85=728 nm /2 = 364 nm radius. (a little more actually)

The Gripen can sustain M 1,1 using dry thrust, while carrying a droptank and AAM's.

In all fairness then: (240 nm + 364 nm)/2=1 droptank = 302 nm supercruise combat radius.

 

[Grand Danois]

GD: On the odd chance you'd trust janes more then a recognized shrink on different F35's "stealth" http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-27505.html

My bet is the ABC's is getting the least downgraded versions
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2593.html

Known stuff.

Still VLO.

Read your material again. 1) old stuff; 2) speculation.

Get some actual hard info that partner VLO is actually degraded. Else you have nothing.

Btw, anti-tampering is to prevent leaking of technologies, not the removal of same.

Lastly, IF partner VLO is slightly worse than US VLO - then consider the implication for non-VLO aircraft.

Additional:


JSF stealth won't be reduced
Posted on: Mar. 20th, 2006 || Source: aimpoints.hq.af.mil | E-mail Article | Print Article

JSF stealth won't be reduced
Foreign press reports that the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) sold to Australia will be less stealthy than promised are wrong, prime contractor Lockheed Martin says.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported March 15 that the proposed Australian version of the JSF would have “low observability” instead of “very low observability.”

Lockheed JSF spokesman John Kent said there has been no downgrading of any of the aircraft’s stealth for foreign or domestic sales.

“It appears that there was just a misunderstanding of terms and definitions,” Kent said.

He said the Australian press reports apparently misinterpreted what “low observable” would mean.

The planes will still have the same stealthy ability to avoid radar and other detection equipment as before, he said.

Australia is one of the partner countries expected to buy JSFs in the coming decade.

http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1274/JSF-stealth-wont-be-reduced.html

 

[Heretic]

Hello, been reading this thread from start to finish and, well, I develop an itch to post some uninformed comment. Anyway, it seems this thread has developed into a comparison between gripen and jsf in general and more specifically which ac of the two is more beneficial for denmark to buy. In my opinion no ac existing today provides more defence for a small nation expecting invasion by a bigger neighbour than gripen+swedish defencedoctrine. However, invasiondefence doesnt seem to be on top of denmarks agenda and denmark is not planning on dispersed roadbasesystem so guess that is not relevant.

Here is my ignorant comparison, its more just to lay down points to comparison and a common ground for discussion, feel free to slaughter my unsupported conjecture:

being there: range, endurance, loitertimes, cruisespeed, climbrate
big jsf advantage due to fueladvantage-loitertime-range


WVR AvA
Jas39 advantage

BWR AvA
big jsf advantage
(apparently much more important than wvr)

AvG
big jsf advantage

AvS
Jas39 advantage, subject to change
(apparently no antiship missile is mountable internally on jsf yet)

cost
big Jas39 advantage

maintenance, availability
Jas39 advantage?

avionics
im bit hazy about what this term really entails so ill just list simpler concepts

radar
even if you compare a new aesa equiped Jas39 with jsf, fact remains, bigger ac=stronger radar.

dlink
Jas39 advantage. Imho, so it will remain for the simple reason that any jsf system will need to be nato-compatible. That means that it will have to make more compromises since it has to cater to more needs and more configurations.

ergonomics
equivalent probably. Ive heard no evil tales of Jas39 ergonomics and i have faith in american ability to design great ergonomics.
reason i bring it up is that ive read that many russian jets, like mig29, are very intimidating on paper but have not been able to live up to their potential in practice due to poor ergonomics.

ewsuit
heard many good things about Jas39 ewsuit but my guess this is jsf advantage. besides, some ew will be dedicated to decreasing enemies vision and detecting enemy radars etc, jsf has an inherent advantage here due to vlo.

other Jas39 advantages

• Roadbase capable/forward bases
• Turnaround
• Deployed. You can actually evaluate what you will get in practice. Any jsf prediction will contain an element of speculation.
• Ruggedness. We dont know yet if the jsf might have some hanger-queen qualities. We know the Jas39 is pretty dependable.
• Denmark would be a more important customer to saab than it would be to, ehrm, boeing?

other jsf advanatages

• USA more important friend than sweden
• vlo allows for missions that are just plain impossible to Jas39
• Synergies with existing f16 maintenence? (the jsf is replacing the f16 in usaf, after all)
• Guaranteed success of program. Lets face it, a failure of the jsf program would be a total disaster for usa, something usa wont allow to happen. The only perceivable risk is that it could possibly prove impracticle in some way for ava tasks, prompting the us to order more f22.
• Large numbers of airframes are going to be build. Thus a guarantee that upgrades and developments are going to be performed throughout its life.
• Better synergies for closer defencecooperation with sweden. Obviously not necessarily an importaint point but people brought up scandinavian defencecooperation as a point in favour of Jas39. Incorrectly imo since obviously Jas39-jsf will be a better combo than Jas39-Jas39.

 

[Heretic]

Another thing that I wanted to throw out there is international operations. Fighter aircraft are usually not the crunch on international operations, always someone who is happy to provide them. Helicopters on the other hand are a real problem, apparently (according to the economist 2 or 3 issues back) there is not anough helicopters by far to cover the needs for nato and un missions.

So, if contributing to international operations is high on denmarks agenda, why not keep the f16? The f16 is a great aircraft with good bwr and great avg capabilities. And its not terribly expensive and you have all the facilities and there are thousands of them in the world already. And spend the money saved on helicopters? And you could always buy new f16's as well, it would still be the cheapest option since you have all the maintenencefacilities already.

 

[Grand Danois]

Hi Heretic,

Agree with most of your observations. Some comments:

being there: range, endurance, loitertimes, cruisespeed, climbrate
big jsf advantage due to fueladvantage-loitertime-range

I wouldn't give the range advantage to the JSF so clearly. Based from what is available in the public domain, I'd conclude that with the increased internal fuel fraction on the Gripen NG, they are pretty much equal, except on missions that require a very heavy weapons loadout.

WVR AvA
Jas39 advantage

It really depends on the impact of JHMCS/LOAL/LOBL/HOBS. However, the Gripen has best maneuverability and sprint.

cost
big Jas39 advantage

Gripen is about 20% cheaper, yes. Depend on how much the customer is willing to spend.

radar
even if you compare a new aesa equiped Jas39 with jsf, fact remains, bigger ac=stronger radar.

Yup. We really cannot know which radar is technologically the best. I wouldn't discredit Euro tech in this aspect, and would even say that wrt MMICs the Euros may take the lead at some point, but that is some time into the future. The US strength is to compress the time from basis research to fielded systems, so when the JSF is fielded it should have the most mature and well developed radar at that time. Beyond that, aperture size matters.

ewsuit
heard many good things about Jas39 ewsuit but my guess this is jsf advantage. besides, some ew will be dedicated to decreasing enemies vision and detecting enemy radars etc, jsf has an inherent advantage here due to vlo.

Read this link from Janes on the differences of these systems.

Integrated defence: DAS evolves to warn aircraft of emergent threats

13 March 2008

In a world where advances in military technology are often taken for granted, it is easy to forget that a truly integrated - rather than federated - defensive aids suite (DAS) for an air vehicle is a relatively new phenomenon that is continuing to push the boundaries of possibility.

An integrated DAS is defined as a self-contained capability that incorporates both warning and countering (active and/or passive as appropriate) functions; is managed by its own control system; is capable of self-execution of a full cycle of actions (from detection to response); and is integrated into its host weapon system in such a way as to complement other onboard functionalities without disrupting them or being disrupted by them.

The key difference between these types of DAS and federated systems, which are frequently mistaken for integrated applications, is their functionality. A federated DAS uses discrete elements that work together but are not capable of an automatic and sequenced response.

In terms of the DAS themselves, a hierarchical sampling would start with 'high-end' systems - such as those developed for the F-22 and F-35 combat aircraft - moving on to 'high to mid-level' systems such as the United States' AN/ALQ-178(V), AN/ALQ-211(V) and Falcon Edge systems; the French Spectre and Integrated Countermeasures Suite (ICMS) applications; the Israeli Advanced Self-Protection Suite (ASPS); the multinational EuroDASS system; and the Swedish EWS39 suite.

Then there are the 'application-dedicated systems', such as the US Guardian and Jeteye systems; the Danish Apache Modular Aircraft Survivability Equipment (AMASE) and Chinook Aircraft Survivability Equipment (CHASE); the French SPS-H/-TA suites; the Turkish Aselsan electronic warfare (EW) self-protection system (ASES); and the UK's Helicopter Integrated DAS (HIDAS).

Both the F-22 and F-35 blend EW and threat-warning capabilities into a complete weapon system, with the whole being tailored to functionality within a low-observable airframe. The F-22 fighter's radar, radar warning, identification and communications capabilities are managed as a single system, with a fused and relevant data display for the pilot. The platform's AN/ALR-94 'EW suite' provides active countermeasures and missile-launch detection, as well as radio frequency (RF) threat detection and integration with the AN/ALE-52 countermeasures dispensing system (CMDS). The F-22's RF emissions are rigorously managed to meet the tactical situation. System control is managed via a dual common integrated processor installation.

The F-35's AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS, which forms part of the aircraft's overall EO sensor system) provides missile warning, with other EW functions being handled by electronic support and 'digital EW' subsystems that form part of the platform's unified avionics functionality. Both aircraft are equipped with Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar systems that can be configured to provide active EW and communications outputs, as well as their various air-to-air and air-to-surface operating modes.

The BAE Systems AN/ALQ-178(V) is an integrated radar warning and active countermeasures suite for more traditional tactical fighter aircraft such as the F-16. The equipment comprises a radar warning receiver (RWR), an active jamming chain and a control architecture that comprises a programmable central computer and independent microprocessors to manage RWR, display, jamming and CMDS functionality. The ALQ-178(V) has been progressively upgraded; the latest iterations incorporating elements such as an agile channel RWR; Digital RF Memory (DRFM) technology; agile jamming channels; distributed high-speed/capacity processors; and precision direction-finding. ALQ-178(V) has been installed aboard Israeli (in a [V]1 configuration) and Turkish ([V]3 and [V]5+) F-16s. The (V)5+ variant is also known as Self-Protection EW System (SPEWS) II. Here, the iteration is known to incorporate a DRFM.

The ITT Electronic Systems AN/ALQ-211(V) Suite of Integrated RF Countermeasures (SIRFC) system is a modular, scalable architecture that can incorporate both passive and active RF subsystems, as well as providing precision radar warning; threat geolocation; advanced situational awareness; RF jamming; and EW suite control capabilities (including laser/missile warners and chemical sensors) as required. Other features include in-flight reprogrammability; the use of MIL-STD-1553B and other high-speed buses to facilitate integration with the host platform's avionics fit; and the use of Standard Electronic Module Type E (SEM-E) packaging, standard PowerPC processors and application specific/monolithic microwave integrated circuitry.

-------------------------

Agree with what I have not commented upon.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

hey bud, heres my thoughts:

being there: range, endurance, loitertimes, cruisespeed, climbrate
big jsf advantage due to fueladvantage-loitertime-range

I agree with you on that one, fuel consumption is dependant on weapons load, and internal weapons carriage (much less drag) pluss the ability to have a smaller range penalty for the same payload.

WVR AvA
Jas39 advantage

Disagree with you on that one. What matters in next gen WVR is sensor/missile combinations just like BVR, rather than trun rates. The F-35 will have 360 degree sensor coverage provided by the EODAS, when this is combinaed with a missile like ASRAAM the F-35 will be able to enagage any threat at any bearing without maneuvering. Thats not a feat JAS-35NG will be able to achieve AFAIK. Also advanced IRCM are vital and i would also givethe advantage to F-35 both at IOC and through life.

BWR AvA
big jsf advantage
(apparently much more important than wvr)

Yep for obvious reasons...

AvG
big jsf advantage

Again for obvious reasons.

AvS
Jas39 advantage, subject to change
(apparently no antiship missile is mountable internally on jsf yet)

Nope. JASSM will be operational at IOC (assuming it is compleated) and will have a very potent AShM capability. Try a VLO missile with a 250nm range, and a passive IIR seeker. Additionally JSOW C has an anti-shipping capability also which will be intergrated at IOC.

cost
big Jas39 advantage

Yep, agree on that one. (maybe not if you buy the last lot of F-35's in 2025+)

maintenance, availability
Jas39 advantage?

Probably, the F-35 has all the complications of maintaing VLO. This VLO penalty has been drasticaly reduced but its still there.

avionics
im bit hazy about what this term really entails so ill just list simpler concepts

I'd put my money on F35. Systems like th Helmet Mounted Display and the way it is intergrated with other systems like the EODAS will alow the pilot to see IR imagery through the floor. Again its a level of sensor fusion that i doubt grippen NG will be able to match.

radar
even if you compare a new aesa equiped Jas39 with jsf, fact remains, bigger ac=stronger radar.

Its not just bigger = better, its a 2nd gen AESA vs a 1st gen, thereofre its going to be a lot more mature and sophistocated. basically its going to be a generation ahead of NORA and therefore should be significantly more capable.

dlink
Jas39 advantage. Imho, so it will remain for the simple reason that any jsf system will need to be nato-compatible. That means that it will have to make more compromises since it has to cater to more needs and more configurations.

Nope. Soon after IOC the F-35 will be equiped with the Radar-Common Data Link (R-CDL) which is based arround the AN/APG 81 and can transmit at 548 mbps and recieve at 1gbps. That is more than an order of magnitude morecapable than current gen Sweedish and NATO datalinks.

Anyway why do you think that just becasue a system is NATO compatible it has to be compromised? Link 16 is a US system that was developed for the US, NATO just adopted it.

ergonomics
equivalent probably. Ive heard no evil tales of Jas39 ergonomics and i have faith in american ability to design great ergonomics.
reason i bring it up is that ive read that many russian jets, like mig29, are very intimidating on paper but have not been able to live up to their potential in practice due to poor ergonomics.

No idea...

ewsuit
heard many good things about Jas39 ewsuit but my guess this is jsf advantage. besides, some ew will be dedicated to decreasing enemies vision and detecting enemy radars etc, jsf has an inherent advantage here due to vlo.

F-35's EW/EWSP suite will probably be the most sophistocated anywre at IOC. BAsed arround the AN/APG 81 the F-35A will be able to interupt datalinks at "extreemly significant ranges" degrade radar perfromance and attack incomeing missiles. Again its a function of the 2nd gen AESA's (3rd gen ESA) capabilities. This alone puts the EW advanatge in the Lighnings court.

 

[gf0012-aust]

cost
big Jas39 advantage

Gripen is about 20% cheaper, yes. Depend on how much the customer is willing to spend.

Cost needs to be judged on complete package and through life support issues. Its not a simple equation. Having been involved with a few projects I can tell you that it's damn complex.

 

[Grand Danois]

Cost needs to be judged on complete package and through life support issues. Its not a simple equation. Having been involved with a few projects I can tell you that it's damn complex.

I'm aware of this complexity. Should have mentioned that this is fly away. But such caveats apply to almost everything discussed! An example of what you refer to, could be AESA radars, which are considered more advanced and capable, but are cheaper to maintain than "classic" radars.

Life cycle for the JSF is in principle an unknown until validated in the field.

Gripen has offered a guaranteed life cycle (20yr) cost of 22 bn DKK or 3 bn EUR to Denmark for 48 Gripen NG. I'd consider this cheap. But I ponder if it reflects the true cost, and what is included and what is not...

 

[Heretic]

Disagree with you on that one. What matters in next gen WVR is sensor/missile combinations just like BVR, rather than trun rates. The F-35 will have 360 degree sensor coverage provided by the EODAS, when this is combinaed with a missile like ASRAAM the F-35 will be able to enagage any threat at any bearing without maneuvering. Thats not a feat JAS-35NG will be able to achieve AFAIK. Also advanced IRCM are vital and i would also givethe advantage to F-35 both at IOC and through life.

This might very well be the way it turns out. However, the gripen does have advantages in wvr too. And there is no way to know until tested. Ill adjust my opinion to no definite advantage, for the time being.

Nope. JASSM will be operational at IOC (assuming it is compleated) and will have a very potent AShM capability. Try a VLO missile with a 250nm range, and a passive IIR seeker. Additionally JSOW C has an anti-shipping capability also which will be intergrated at IOC.

As I said, subject to change. Right now the gripen has a clear advantage. However, wont the AShM's fittable inside the jsf be somewhat small?

Nope. Soon after IOC the F-35 will be equiped with the Radar-Common Data Link (R-CDL) which is based arround the AN/APG 81 and can transmit at 548 mbps and recieve at 1gbps. That is more than an order of magnitude morecapable than current gen Sweedish and NATO datalinks.

Anyway why do you think that just becasue a system is NATO compatible it has to be compromised? Link 16 is a US system that was developed for the US, NATO just adopted it.

Devising a protocol that will have to incorporate alot more platforms and alot more needs will push towards forcing to make compromises, imho. On a sidenote, any natowide standard is a much tastier target to divert resorces towards researching ways of jamming, intercepting etcetera. These are obviously uninformed common-sense arguments of mine (possibly i could claim some knowledge from working as a programmer and designing a few protocols myself but not sure it applies).

 

[Heretic]

Hi Heretic,
I wouldn't give the range advantage to the JSF so clearly. Based from what is available in the public domain, I'd conclude that with the increased internal fuel fraction on the Gripen NG, they are pretty much equal, except on missions that require a very heavy weapons loadout.

Oh, i didnt know that. I just sortof assumed the jsf was very long range, it being geared towards bombing and all. But I take it you use the gripen N for your comparison? Ive more been thinking about gripen c/d when making the comparison. After all, gripen N is not in production yet.