Well, thats politics. The origional point still has validity in that the system developers and maintainers are right next door and this MIGHT result in better training and safer supply and easier comunication. Or it might not, Im really not in a position to say.
As pointed out, there are a couple of issues with the notion suggested about. A number of the systems used in the Gripen (or the proposed NG) will be non-Swedish in origin, therefore there would be no additional safety for these systems in Sweden. Also, Sweden would have the ability to maintain these systems, a capability that Norway could easily develop assuming it did not already have that, and therefore no real additional advantage. As for assistance from system developers, this becomes important if/when additional capabilities are desired from an aircraft, or if/when new systems are to be fitted. This is an area where economies of scale can make a difference. The more aircraft users are working towards adapting a system to work on a given aircraft, the less the overall development cost is per unit typically.
Really? You can definately say that due to the fact that the gripen uses a high degree of off-the-shelf components, its capabilities will be less than f35? Tall claim, imo. NB im not comparing the platforms, just saying that you read alot into it and making sweeping claims.
Not really, and if one considers what it means to use MOTS components one can deduce why. As GD posted
If you want to develop something better than what is rehashes of COTS/MOTS today, you develop new.
AND
To put it to the point, in the fighter context: "COTS/MOTS was leading bleeding edge yesterday."
AND
The reason why COTS/MOTS is cheap is because someone took the effort to spend the money to develop them.
By the time a system would be considered MOTS, it is no longer top of the line, leading edge. MOTS systems are used because of a lower cost and risk since the system development work has already been completed and paid for. However, as part of this, the capabilities of a given system are set. The only way to advance or improve on a systems' capabilities is to modify or develop a system, which in turn makes something no longer MOTS and also exposes the developer to cost and risk issues. The point of developing new systems is to either improve on the capabilities of existing systems, or add additional capabilities not already included.
Part of the reason why the JSF program is taking so long, and why the ATF/F-22 took so long, was the amount of system development work done to include capabilities that other aircraft do not have, or expand upon them. Two key areas of improvement the F-35 has over previous generations of multi-role aircraft has to do with the sensor fusion/situational awareness and LO properties. As far as LO goes, the less likely the opponent is to notice the aircraft, the more likely the F-35 will be able to perform its mission, i.e. one does not shoot at a target one does not know is there. As for the improvements to situational awareness and the sensor fusion, this is done to give the operator a better idea of what is going on. The data can either come from different onboard sensors (some of which cover arcs not found on other aircraft) or to make use of offboard sensors. Similarly, the F-35 can then relay information out to other receivers to inform them of situations.
I do not believe a Gripen (even the NG), using MOTS components and a non-LO airframe will be able to match the offensive and defensive capabilities of the F-35 given the effort taken the extend F-35 capabilities in LO and situational awareness beyond what existing fighters of similar roles can do currently. Keep in mind, it is not just the raw performance of the F-35, it is how well the F-35 will integrate into an entire system
My personal opinion of the gripen platform is that its excellent for swedish conditions and the swedish defencedoctrine. The idea of guirilla jets as it were apeals to me. It seems perfect for the task of denying airsuperiority to a superior neighbour. Like, Pakistan might have been well served by gripens for example, assuiming they would also use the dispersed airfields strategy. Small russian neighbours like Georgia might also be well served. Or cuba for that matter. But comparing it and saying that it is less capable than the f35 that is developed for a completely different job is a very brave claim. Especially with the limited information we all have, no matter what position you have in this or that defenceorganisation.
With one caveat, I disagree. Since emphasis was placed on the Gripen being able to use Swedish roadways as dispersed airfields, that could be one area where the Gripen on a platform level out performs the F-35. By the same token though, such a capability could prove to be less than useful if one considers how air campaigns have been fought over the last ~18 years. Generally the first targets in an air campaign is the C4ISR and IADS. As one of the initial targets, without sufficient warning, any aircraft on the ground at an airfield are likely to be destroyed on site. Also, if the aircraft were able to be dispersed and concealed to evade destruction during the opening on an air campaign, as soon as the aircraft attempt to sortie, they will be swarmed by hostile aircraft. The only ways to avoid this is either by evading detection, or managing to deny control of airspace. Given that is one of the first goals of an air campaign... That cannot be achieved if ones forces are dispersed and concealed.
As for the "role" of the Gripen and the F-35, my understanding is that both are (or are to be) multi-role aircraft, being capable of performing air to ground, and air to air missions. The differences in size and performance are what would lead to different missions being assigned to the aircraft.
-Cheers
