The Central Fusion Server, aka the Battle Analyzer?

http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html

Loke – Misery loves company. Facing the prospect of being cut to a token force, RNLAF would like to see the Belgian force cut down to one F-35 squadron in a joint force, providing them with economies of scale and some depth. Probably up to the Belgian politicians at this point.

Gripen NG is not an F-35 equivalent.

Since you don’t seem to feel the need to read anything, IGNORE FUNCTION GO!

FBW – The claims that somehow the NG will be a quantum leap above the C are specious at best.

I’m sure you’re right. It only has a new engine (with the world’s best T/W), entirely new avionics (from sensors to displays) and a seriously modified airframe.

FBW – It is not a question of believing Saab data versus LM’s (although one has a track record of delivering kit on time that does what it says on the tin and the other does not) but that the Gripen radar IS ON A FREAKING SWASHPLATE.

I don’t think that JAS 39E will “directly” threaten F-35 sales. It’s well positioned as a substitute for nations that find the F-35 acquisition and operations price tag indigestible. But those nations have to admit they have a problem first.

Thanks, Flex – I wasn’t trying to imply “conspiracy” but making the point that nobody who has listened to anyone from the Netherlands’ defense establishment would ever have expected any kind of evaluation to come up in favor of anything but F-35, barring an asteroid impact.

However, looking at the capabilities listed (with the proviso that the report is more than five years old):

1-Offensive Counter Air/Sweep. Possible advantage to stealth provided that the weapons and RoE permit you to take advantage of any difference in detection/tracking range. On the other hand, JAS 39E has Meteor and better supersonic performance. (I can’t see how you would judge that JAS 39E “can’t do” this mission.) It’s also relevant that USAF does not regard the F-35 as an OCA platform (see Gen. Hostage’s recent comments.)

2-Defensive Counter Air/Cruise Missile Defence. Stealth irrelevant. Advantage JAS 39E.

3-Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences. Possible advantage F-35.

4-Air Interdiction. Possible advantage F-35 on deep missions vs. defended targets. Less so in second echelon scenario.

5-Close Air Support. F-35 Block 3F can’t do this because it lacks competitive EO/IR (EOTS has limited field of regard, no HDTV) and Rover compatibility. Fixing issue means adding a pod and destroying stealth.

6-Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. Block 3F has no capability, lacking suitable datalinks and sensors (HDTV/LOROP &c) and again, F-35 would need a pod.

So that gives me three missions (1, 3 and 4) where the F-35 may do better (and it is primarily a bomber, so two of those are “gimmes”). Two missions (5 and 6) that the F-35 can’t do. One (2) that the JAS 39E will do better. And 2, 5 and 6 are the missions that have been most required in the past 20 years.

And then there’s the awkward problem of a 37-aircraft force, and operating costs that even the Pentagon can’t quite agree on. But Hals- und Beinbruch! with that, as your neighbors say.

As for the current MinDef, I’d help bridge her capability gap, IYKWIMAITYD.