Only way for Gripen to win in Finland is if stealth becomes somehow obsolete before Finland buys new fighters.

That’s an interesting hypothesis.

By the way someone could explain to me what it means to be troll.

You’re welcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaoxI1DO6Sk

I think he is trying to say (1) that everything on the F-35 is superwonderful and (2) he hopes that after a few months everyone has forgotten that his meandering arguments have already been demolished.

There is a bit of a difference between astronomy, on the one hand, and a weapon system, on the other, where the maximum latency between energy impinging on a detector and imagery/tracks being displayed on the vizor is measured in low-double-digit microseconds.

Nobody’s claiming AC is easy, or that the performance claimed in the 1990s had been demonstrated then. But like any camouflage, it doesn’t have to be perfect to work.

TC 12f – The story goes that, at the Paris air show, an engineer from what was then Dassault Electronique was briefing a reporter from the Show News daily about Spectra (this was before DE was folded into Thales) and started bragging a bit, talking about “stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible… There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real LO aircraft.”

“Ah,” says the reporter, “are you talking about active cancellation?” The engineer turned seventeen shades of green.

This story is gossip and obviously there is no way I can confirm it. On the other hand, it is public record that when Rafale got started, the French MoD also broke ground for what may be the biggest indoor RCS measurement facility in the world – at least, I think it’s the only one that will accommodate a real fighter aircraft.

I don’t think Gripen has DIRCM. It’s not designed to defeat SRAAM, and warning+flares+maneuver will defeat MANPADS against a fast jet as long as it has energy (that is, not trundling along at 80 knots on full military power, with no maneuverability at all).

Well, yes – fewer aircraft tend to be cheaper. Of course, a small number of very expensive aircraft still costs a lot.

Let’s stipulate that there are scenarios that don’t call for a full CSG but do require fast-jet, organic air support.

How many such scenarios are there, and is it worth $40 billion in procurement and decades of monster operating costs to cover them?

“More efficient” in that context would include land-based and CV-based air. It is not synonymous with “cheap” in the OED.

Aegis is a capable system within its limits, one of which is that the earth is not flat. That’s why there are sea-skimmers and AEW. Yes, there is a chance that DDG/CG could successfully defend a task force on its own against a strong ASCM threat, but try explaining yourself when you try it and it does not work. In the real world I doubt that anyone would attempt it.

Obviously fighters and AEW are useful. The issue is whether and how you can sustain CAP and conduct any other missions with a handful of aircraft that have <2 hr endurance. Landbased AEW can help but the effort required increases rapidly with distance. As for VTOL AEW, it’s been offered to the Navy/Marines and greeted with a resounding lack of interest, which may be significant.