Wrong. In that role the F-35A will be at 50% internal fuel at best. All interceptors climb at subsonic speeds and here the drag is no issue. To have Gripen NG for that role at first is a waste of money.

50% of internal fuel?
Not quite, they will have a full internal fuel load and might have external fuel tanks on, the QRA job up there is not just intercept the aircrafts, at least the military Russian ones, sometimes its to follow the chaps till they leave the national airspace, that might include a flight starting near Vardo in the North going to south of Bergen, quite long a trip. If we were discussing the QRA over the three Baltic States, you would be correct, but Norway is a bit diferent.

Cheers

With all do respect that is laughable. Even the AMRAAM’s (AIM-120’s) have a big impact on performance not to mention the big a bulky Fast Packs!

Just a tinyweeny bit of a small search in this same Forum unveil´s a USAF chart posted quite a number of times comparing the performance of a completely clean F-15 and one with four semi recessed AIM-7 Sparrows, the diference is almost zero, and on the Eagles CFT´s how many articles do you want stating that the kinetic performance loss is small?

“The only external difference between the F-15A and the F-15C was the introduction on the F-15C of the capability of carrying FAST (Fuel And Sensor Tactical) packs attached to the side of the fuselage outside of each air intake. The tanks conform to the aerodynamic shape of the side of the fuselage, and when they are installed, there is very little adverse aerodynamic effect and very little degradation in performance.”
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_8.html

And for the “Finale”, a USAF speed chart for the F-15C with four AIM-7F and CFT´s, thats Mach 2.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224332[/ATTACH]

Agree about top speed, but supercruise can be of great help for time to station, thus increasing air superiority area , disminishing number of necessary planes etc. Dunnoif i was clear.

For the case in question (the EPAF countries, plus Canada) its entirely irrelevant. Dynamic capabilities were almost irrelevant, it was always a question of being able to plug into the massive US suport/upgrade network.

For the EPAF countries its a question of choosing between a) be able to do QRA, a bit of training and pay lip service to “out of office” NATO/US operations by contributing a plug in “four ships” 1/3 of a SQN, this if the 2006/2007 original budgets for the acquisition of the JSF are maintained, this option is the Dutch one; b) doubling the budget, acquire the original numbers of F35A described in the MOU, slash (almost) every other MOD acquisition program for the foreseable future, or c) go somewhere else and acquire something cheaper, this means training in Lynkoping…

(Joke mode ON) Now ask yourself, if you were a pilot would you prefer to train in Lynkoping or California? :dev2:

Lynkoping
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224231[/ATTACH]

I will be nothing short of astounded if anyone chooses the “C)” option.

from my (somewhat tired after new years eve…) memory the F-15 was denied to export except a few particular cases… japan for being pretty much alone on the frontline facing China, Israel for its particular status (and strong lobbies) with the US, and Saudi Arabia for facing Iran or something along these lines..

basically, that’s one “theory” I’ve read.. another one was simply that it was just too costly to be considered by anyone except a few who, either benefited from US help (Israel and Japan) or had the bucks to afford it (Saudi Arabia), but it was proposed elsewhere, like in France (as shows this pic, of the F-15 in French colors:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224192[/ATTACH]

, where Dassault produced a local version of a heavy fighter (Mirage 4000) which, inb the end, proved to be too costly for them as well and lead to a smaller version which is the Mirage 2000

In the old days McDonnell Douglas tried to sell the Eagle to virtualy every one in Nato that showed even a slight interest, Canada, GBritain and France all of them evaluated the aircraft, and at least in Canada the interest was serious (:dev2:). The Eagle was way over the specifications laid out by the Multinational Fighter Program Group (the four European Chaps that bought the Viper), Germany was simply not interested, period, and this pretty much covers the entire NATO part who actually had the money to acquire something like the original Eagle.

Genuine enquiry this (because I don’t know the answer): disregarding price and operating cost in what ways is Gripen superior to SH and Rafale?

To the SH, raw Kinematics, short take off and landing performance, an internal IRST and (eventually) a Sat Modem (the advantages of the SH over the Gripen are obvious). To the Rafale, IMO thats a harder question to answer.

A few comments:
A) Congratulations to SAAB and Brasil, the Gripen E is a perfect substitute for the F-5E and AMX. Anything bigger would mean slashing the number of flying hours, that or addressing the main problem of the FAB, too much personnel.
B) In one day SAAB signed the conversion of 60 Gripen C´s to E´s for the Flygvapnet and was chosen by the FAB! Hell, i could ear (in my office in Lisbon) the party going on in Lynkoping…
C) This FAB deal almost certainly is a prequel for more Gripen acquisitions by Brasil. The entire AMX and F-5E fleets will be gone by 2023/25, and the Swedish aircraft is the natural candidate to fill the entire FAB fast jet sqn´s fleet.
D) The Sea Gripen just went from a “not a chance in hell of being built” to “not probable, but…”
E) Between the Flygvapnet, the FAB and the Schweizer Luftwaffe, the Gripen production line has orders till 2026. Taking point C) above, there´s a very, very real chance that the production line might go very near 2030. Anyone expecting that the Western manned combat jet market would turn into a monopoly can say goodbye to that theory for the foreseable future.
F) The Swedish single engine, 7/8 ton combat jet is eating what once was the Mirage family market. In a way this aircraft is “spiritually” very similar to the “old” Mirage´s.

It certainly looks like it was cobbled together in a hurry for the press conference as demonstrated by the condition of the canopy & the towing of it on a cart so what was on display I would have to agree but that does not mean the concept or the general shape of the aircraft was phony & or that it would not be a natural evolution from the Bavar2 ground effect aircraft.

The Bavar 2 is indeed a ground effect aircraft, that “other” thing is not a ground effect aircraft, period. There´s absolutely nothing connecting the two except being Iranian.