Why cant TIDLS and KEPD350 be used against sams?
A silent Gripen can fire from 500km away. all they need is GPS coordinates via link.
As i heared the S-400 can track targets at 400km, these are obviusly B-52.s at high altitudes. Not 0,1 RCS fighters. Maybe half that distance is viable for a 0,1 RCS fighter at altitude(at best).

That slice you posted (I know from Saabs marketing department) is quite funny. So all aircraft fly with M 1.1, but the F-35 can’t supercruise? Why does the Gripen need a minute more for the same range at same speed? Why does it compare the Gripen with 4 AAMs vs 2 on the F-35 and 8 on the Typhoon? That’s what I call nonsense!

This is credible data. A manufacturer cant compare 1 vs 1 exactly due to not enough data availible for the other players. The differencies are noted arent they? up for the eye of the beholder to weight the differencies.

deficit : deep strike with heavy loads (cruise missiles, heavy LGBs or muli LGBs to treat a high number a hardened targets). The gripen can’t take large quantities of external fuel as soon as you start hanging weapons. Besides at a similar configuration the gripen will need to stimulate its engine much more penalizing the range.

deficit : CAS or re-task to treat time sensitive tagets due to a short persistence over the bettlefield.

deficit : CAP due to short persistence over the battlefield.

In the end its smaller size will impact on the overall effectivness to tackle the wide range of missions/situations required in such conflict. You can’t have only advantages when you are the smallest. That’s just common sense. You will lose in flexibility and comfort to realize a given mission.

Deep strike with heavy loads are rafales specialty. This is a really special case thou. And if i was a comander i would really liked a B-1B for this. If your are a Gripen operator, you could manage this differently if more goods is needed.
Take 2 gripens with 20 stores instead, and you also got even better tactial flexibility(TIDLS link, and two planes) and with the same operational price of one EF/Rafale :). And with the availability of the Gripen (most common 98%-100%), this would not be a problem.
People tend to forget that Gripen is designed around this datalink and this link is extremely good, and is very effective in co-ops. Comparing one vs. one is therefore not as good as comparing 2 vs 2 or up to 4 vs 4 for Gripen.

I dont see Libia as much as deep strike thou. Gripen managed this scenario very good, with a fraction of the costs. The Falklands without fueling was deep strike in my mind 🙂

CAP/CAS= low fuelburn for recistance?=good? fast turnaround=good?=gripen are wellsuited

Does CAP/CAS require maxed out loadings? no. probably only 1 LGB, or/and 1 or some brimestone is needed for one strike.. hanging around long time with big loads doesnt need to be the most effective way.

F-15C first flight is 1978. 10 years before JAS-39. but F-15C is not multirole fighter. so no point in comparision.

it is limited because of lower TWR than it contempories. when you have low TWR. slight weopon loads need use of afterburner for acceleration and climbrates. see that Gripen demo episide.
6AAM will not have the same impact on Rafale/EF as it is on Gripen. Heavier weopons further increase the capabilities difference. It is good interceptor but not a multirole fighter.
More over the way Gripen NG is put together make it expensive. Almost twice the price of JAS-39C.
No such doubling price is expected any other update of fighters.

Heavy loads effect small jets more.. that is news to me!:o
Did you know that Jets usually dont fly around with that heavy loads? 6AAM doesnt effect that much.
Did you also know price also effect buyers?

You always have a new ace up your sleave. 😀 Yes, gripen does more than EF and F-35, more than enough for most AF. Look it up.
Doubling the price? The market makes the price, not the manufacturing costs. And whats the point to go down this road? Gripen have no competion in “bang for the buck” area.

There is no reason to believe that Demo weight increased from 6800kg to surpass even 7500kg weight of Gripen NG.
F-18E/F-16E are in service for 10 years. Gripen NG is expected to be 2020 fighter. so it is 20 year gap. so you cannot compare the aerodynamic efficiency or TWR (advance materials) to be similar.
I was looking at JF-17 slides in other threads. It has 1800km ferry range with 2300kg fuel.
so what so special about Gripen NG having 2500km range on 3400kg fuel.

Now Aerodynamic efficiency of Gripen bad?! Stop trolling! Its probably the best out there.
TWR of F-15C is still good isnt it? how old is it? 1974 right..

I didnt say 2500km range on internal fuel was extremly good, only that it isnt “limited” as you put it…

I wonder why SwAF wants to retire so capable F-18:s in the first place? They seems to work extremly well for SwAF. Fly em until they die, i say.

In other A-A scenarios even gripen A have made a really good competion against Finnish F/A-18.
So i still wonder how the SwAF scenarios looks like. Anyone got a cloe?

I am a bit confused by the various reports (from the Basler Zeitung), clearly at the beginning, the Swiss said all three aircraft passed the benchmark ( of the F-18).

This report, from which the graph supposedly comes from clearly shows that the Gripen did not meet it at either stage. The ‘confidential report’ also also states the Rafale was the only aircraft the pass the benchmark (this refuted by it’s own figures which shows the Typhoon also passed)

Never mind the Typhoon being as good as the hornet in a2a in 2008, apparently it was for a2g too!

Also, after the UAE debacle, does anyone else think that Dassault stating the Swiss “knowingly decided not to put Switzerland at the highest level in Europe as regards the performance of its new combat aircraft.” is a little …undiplomatic?

in politics and lobbying theres always confusion, and make the “best out of your case”, and twist the data accordingly is all in the game.
The ones taking the decisions hopefully got the right data to fall back on. The other is lobbying.