hehe sorry for my bad choice of termonogly here.
the nature of conflict in the last 30 years is that it's rapid and relatively unpredictable. To make a claim that you don't have any enemies now so can judge how to respond to a threat based on a current benign neighbourhood is flawed and wishful thinking
Proven at what? where and when? by who (not SAAB marketing)
The role of the RNAF Is more than air intercepts, thats absolutely a ridiculous simplistic compression of the tasking.
its a nonsense statement. you fail to understand that VLO benefit is exactly that - primary stages of war - the breaching tool for other less protected systems to follow through. Thats been the cogent lesson of 1999 and which triggered the rush by all major military powers to fast track systems development in VLO/LO/Ewarfare solutions. As a breaching tool the JSF can go dirty once the work is done. It's a concept that most fanclubbers fail to understand. In fact the example of this at a doctrine level was demonstrated using the radar matted firebees in Vietnam
So 7+2 countries all subscribe to offensive warfare? good grief. stop dumbing down the debate to fit your prejudices.
there is nothing wrong with not being an expert, but to make claims which demonstrate bias rather than logic becomes irritating
less emotion and more considered debate would be of benefit to you.
it was stated from volvo euro, and i think you can find it on their webpage, anyway i read it in another swedish paper, a couple of months back.
Ehm they operates gripen, so they if anyone should know what the A/C is capable of. don´t you think??
again - what is the data breakdown? against what criteria? where is it?
oh come on! where is the F-22 MTBF? WTF has it got to do with the JSF? It's a far more mature platform - it's operational in larger numbers than Gripen - what is the comparative matrix here? answer = NONE
what similarities do the JSF have with the F-22? They're designed for different roles in the USAF. The JSF in other airforces will fulfill a universal role. It's a basic doctrine issue for USAF. trying to extrapolate that to RNAF is ridiculous
The only comparative data that they have is with Hawks and Typhoons. Don't pollute threads with bogus science.
It seems the context of NGs statement was simply a supercruise anecdote, not any evaluations per. se.
I don't claim to be an expert.
which is why caution needs to be entertained when making sweeping statements
The RNAF assessment team obviously thinks differently.
knowledge is relative. it's the logic thats important when facts are absent.
RFT (assessments) are performed against platforms meeting an overall requirement. it DOES NOT mean that they are all competitive. I've been involved in procurement programs, and I can assure you that just because a platform is in the first cut does not mean that it's in the hunt long term. Selection is based on a matrix that covers a number of criteria. It's only once the entire matrix is assessed by the selection and capability team that platforms start to get cut out.
I presume he means the Empire Test Pilots School. It's used Gripen for a few years.
The reason for my clear frustration is that you are making sweeping statements and presenting them as a vehicle of fact.
I fail to see anything wrong with joining a forum to boraden ones insight, in particular when doing so in a friendly and curious manner.
Happy to discuss this offline. I've expressed myself clearly already in here and don't intend to pollute the thread with OT debate.
Interestingly enough, the official site for EPTS doesn't list Gripen in its suite of test and training aircraft......
Probably because the Gripens have always been on loan from SAAB, & not part of the EPTS inventory.