a video of that model has been out for a while.. not really Pak-fa ish in any way..
it has no moveable lerx
its two seater
it has an S duct
it has 2-d nozzles
it has side by side bays not tandem ones
closer to an F-22 with delta wings and no tail rudders.

are you sure its “only” 2D nozzles?
the non existent rudders should suggest 3D type for a fighter (agility would be very bad with no rudders and no 3D nozzles)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008-08_Gripen_NL_Presentation.pdf

1300km combat radius with 30min on station..
2500km ferry range on internal fuel
4075km ferry range with internal fuel

is contract signed with manufacturing schedule. Meteor is best missile out there? and will it be best missile for ever. as so little is manufactured.

for some reason Gripen Nose from side profile looks thinner.

looks thinner? 😀 it still hose a F-16 size radar.
Meteor is going to be the best missile for a long long time. As your references progress so will MDBA, and meteor 2.0 will be out. I really dont see your point.

I’ve read it. What does that article say that YOU wanted to say ?

And the Gripen NG offer didn’t come in front of the Rafale in any area from the leaked evaluation reports. Neither the Rafale nor the Typhoon.

The leak was not the report, it was actively selected parts(to make gripen look bad) of the first report(C/D).

Stop it with this fallacious argument that anything better than a F-5 would replace it succesfully. It is ridiculous. You have no idea if the SAF wants to replace their aircrafts type for type or go for an all in one force when they retire the Hornets. And even if you knew it’d still be a silly argument.

Nic

i implicated that is about the smallest fighter on earth. Not better or worse than any other.
Its hornets isnt really replaced, and yes the can if they want, be replaced in the future with any jet they like.
The SH would be a good replacer due to same engine as gripen, but the future can be 2030?

answering a swedish fanboy that does not bother read?

Well, i read it. And did not bother answer, such idiotic statments. F-5 fighters is replaced, so i think you can understand all by yourself what that means for the requirements.

That’s not what the SAF report says. So I take it that you’re saying that the SAF chose whatever plane would fullful their ego the most and that they didn’t care to properly evaluate the requirements. Obviously everyone here know what the SAF requirement were better than the SAF itself. It’s risible.

There’s no denying that the Gripen can replace a F5. Heck a JF17 could probably replace a F5. But stop saying you know better than the SAF which planes fits the requirements better.

Nic

If you where genuinely interested you would read and remember earlier posts, and also would not bias as a rafale lobby/fanboy, but be fair.

The updated requirements gripen E/F fits better. Better does not mean “more power”, if “more power” isnt needed.
Due to the specification not of E/F isnt finished, all this is just alot of bull from you. As i said already and really getting bored in telling you more times.
They bought a fighterprogram with Sweden, to fit the requirements better. They did not buy a fighter.
So think about it.
If you buy a new COTS house, or design your own new house. which one will suit you best?