Very interesting this comment, since that Gripen E/F should be much better in all aspects because its has been increasing the size as well as the weights in relation at the Gripen C/D, however the new version of the missile RBS-15F should be better because it will be lighter and smaller than its current version…

Perhaps my brain needs at least another million years of evolution to understand this concept of alternative realities,

While the E is bigger and heavier, it also has more thrust and a lot more fuel than the C… The Gripen E by comparison with the C maintained its thrust/weight ratio while having a much better fuel fraction. On top of that if the external cargo carried by the E is lighter than what the C would carry, its entirely normal that it behaves better.

If your measuring stick is the F-35 then of course the SH falls short.

If you compare the SH to the Eurocanards, in terms of RCS reductions my guess is it’s the same ballpark. The ASH suggested by Boeing also demonstrates a significant growth potential (which of course pales in comparison to the growth potential of the F-35).

Cost wise it seems to be cheaper than both Rafale and Typhoon… I am not sure how it compares to F-35, Boeing seems to be challenging the conclusions made in Denmark.

I saw a Belgian poster suggesting that Belgium should go for a mix of SH and Growlers, arguing that operating costs of F-35 is still a bit of an unknown, and that Europe will in any case have a significant number of F-35 whereas Europe has very limited stand-off EWS capabilities.

He actually does have a good point… Even tiny Australia has infinitely larger numbers of Growlers than Europe (which currently has 0). And for Europe (or NATO) whether Belgium adds 34 F-35 or not does not really make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.

Both France and Sweden probably has the know-how to develop a Growler version of either Rafale or Gripen but it has not yet happened.

I am going to make a prediction, for the foreseable future (lets say a decade) every European Country West of Ukraine, that is going to acquire new combat jets are going to a) order “Dave”, b) order a variation of Gripen and c) order some Vipers from AMARC, the main KPP being “size of budget”. The two exceptions will be France with the Rafale F4 and maybe Germany with the Tornado ECR replacement wich could go “Dave”, upgrade sensors/weapons for their Phoons, rebuild the Tornados and use them for the next fifteen/twenty years, a mix of the two/three options, or nothing at all.

meaning the F-35 is going to need a crapload of upgrades to remain relevant, or have to compete with aircraft that cost a fraction of its price for equal performance

Name one of those “aircraft that cost a fraction of its price for equal performance” please?

yes from 75kN (~7.6t) to 8.2t (~80.5kN)

Is that official?

I am afraid you are already being proven wrong by SAAB, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman that have offered or have considered offering “large airborne GaN Antennas” for programs of record.

Not only offered but already contracted. The two new UAE AEW´s will field a GAN Erieye radar.

Cheers

And yet from the same document:

2017: $166,829.500 each for 4 total planes
2018: $134,769.000 each for 6 total planes
2019: $124,382.000 each for 12 total planes
2020: $116,522.833 each for 18 total planes

So the cost for FY2017 is artificially high only because of the low number of planes being ordered that year. In fact for FY2016 it was at $132,829,500 each for 6 total planes. As opposed to the Super Hornets and Growlers, where Boeing is building 2 or more per month (i.e. 24 or more per year) since they’ve said that’s the minimum for it to be economically viable.

And?
Off course that the costs of Dave C are high because the numbers being built are low, are we ever going to see that particular aircraft costing the same has a SH in the same exact year? According to the US Navy Budget, the answer is a “NO”. The SH production lots are going to dwindle before the US Navy starts to acquire Dave C in numbers.

First time I have noted this.. is the IRST ball off the axis of the aircraft?

Yes