No idea which design they were referring to, but it could be the N/D-102, since Dornier wasn’t working on any other fighter design back then..it was sort of a YF-17 follow-on design.

FlightGlobal article with a picture of N/D-102

and

Another one

the N/D-102 did look like a design with a lot of potential. Good view for the pilot with a proper bubble canopy, a large delta wing meaning low wing loading and some clear influences from the YF-17, such as the notch in the wing that allows boundary layer air flow separated by the splitter plate to flow onto the wing. Interestingly, this feature is present on the LCA as well.

The story in the first link says it was to be powered by two F404 “NON-afterburning” turbofans to reduce IR signature. Very interesting.

Here is a summary

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=85882

Oh, same old story. The RCS figure in that FOI paper is just an assumption made for the sake of modeling and simulation.

Does the Su-35 being bigger than the Gripen actually equal quality over quantity?

I’m fairly sure SAAB would argue the Gripen is of equal quality to the Su-35. 🙂

Thus a larger number of Gripens versus a number of Su-35’s would be quantity and at least equal quality versus quality?

Yes, being able to fly farther with more missiles is certainly higher quality.

What prompted me to start this thread was a claim by Saab in 2009 that Gripen NGs defeated much larger Su-35s at a ratio of 16 to 10 in its 50 simulations.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/gripen-revives-war-of-words-over-norwegian-fighter-assessment-327317/

This claim should obviously be regarded with suspicion – computer engineers have a saying: garbage in, garbage out – but it gives me an impression that Saab believes cheaper lightweight fighters can overwhelm more expensive heavy fighters by numbers. At a given amount of money, you should be able to buy and operate more Gripens than Su-35s.

Location, location, location. If the Mirages stayed at high altitude, the Harriers could ignore them. No threat to the ships. They didn’t have enough fuel to use their speed advantage once they got down & dirty. Their nominally BVR R530s weren’t effective enough at BVR ranges to make a difference.

AFAIK, the only engagement between Sea Harriers & Mirage IIIs was with equal numbers, two on two. One Mirage shot down, one used too much fuel to get home & diverted to Stanley, where it was hit by Argentinean ground fire.

Comparing numbers of Mirage IIIs to Sea Harriers doesn’t mean much. The Mirages were always part of raids with other types.

Yes, forcing the adversary to fly greater distances to fight is in effect a virtual attrition.

Vietnam?

No the US had superiority both in quality AND quantity.

The key is to achieve local superiority, it don’t really matter if you have more if they are late-comers, so communication & speed is also critical.
Luck also plays a part.
Like Patton said – “be there the fastest with the mostest”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

It worked well enough for americans to pitch 5 patton tanks vs 1 tiger,
only 1 patton tank was expected to survive the encounter, but they could afford it while germans couldn’t.

good read
http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/TOC.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder

What I want as a valid example is not a single battle, but an entire war.