lots of speculation in this thread and a form of protectiorism/mistrused

I think this is only alternative if they skip F-35B or maybe F-35 alltogether and probably like in norway, only a way of pushing things in the JSF program.
Who knows?
SAAB is a luctrative company that used to pull big things with small means. With big knowlege of marine equipment.
If this is going SAAB way, the work is needed to stay in britain for certain and a
royalty for future orders, maybe even in NG orders?! This is probably a good case for britain. things Lockh. o Dassul.. will never do.

Anyhow, i think its brave of SAAB pushing this. And certainly they dont think its to much modification at all, as many of you imply. And they probably know more of the buisnesscase than you guys after all 🙂

Also the cost of having gripen as a third fighter isnt as big as you might imagine. Especially compared to extended F-35 and EF fleets as alternative.

I would take that as an ATA equipped raptor is more aerodynamic than most* any non-stealth jet with external stores….

That is a myth..
Internal stores was abandoned when speed was needed after WW2. The crosssection need to be small for low drag and to even cross the barrier.

Now every “shape” stealth fighter compenate the drag with brute force and lots of fuel (fuelfraction) and thustvectoring in some cases.

If i can foree the future, the future will probably skip the shaping and for more materials and coatings. Also go back to more slim shape and more compact weapons and storage. And and also more “stealth” external stores. And ofcourse more costeffective UCAVs

Yes.
Look at it this way:
The lowest of all probabilities is when the antenna is passive,
and the larger it is, the more it can absorb.
“LPI” sends out a faint signal, and receive an even more faint signal,
for that to be of use, the antenna need to be large,
or the “LPI” ain’t so “LPI”

LPI isnt a faint signal, its just hard to detect. example a TX very high energy short burst and frequency hopping.

my replies in bold.

i wonder when Tejas became NG comparible

Let me give you another suggestion.. Let Swedes kill the Gripen NG, and ask India for partnership in AMCA program. Because Sweden or no Sweden, Tejas and AMCA will happen

IAF the evaluator thinks otherwise… Gripen has not been finalized as its too similar to Tejas.. dumb or otherwise

as you said that even US of A has killed many its programs, and sure Swedes have no problems in feeding its own hungry people, so learning from the lesson, it should be a child’s play for it to kill and wrap up Gripen NG…

noones going to kill the NG, Gripen E/F is going to be ordered at least by SweAF.
And the jet has won halv of all it´s endevored tenders.
So killing it is like killing its future and the good buisness with it. they maybe cut the developement pace, but never kill it.

oh
NG (98kN) 9.8t – 8t =1.8t ??????

]

Oh yeah, french data? :rolleyes:

Though I have done some calculations and arrived at the conclusion that a single ET adds 38% more fuel and reportedly offers 40% more range. This isn’t really viable as more weight and drag is certainly hurting your range. More fuel efficiency with more weight and drag isn’t viable and I suppose that the 1000 km figure is rounded anyway.

it seems to me kind of reckless of Saab to claim this, if youre right, havent questioned it myself…
Jet A1 density differs from 0,775 to 0,840. so its more likely to be 38%-41% more fuel. Therefore a round figure with linear asumption “40% more fuel gets you approx. 40% longer”. So maybe youre right. Something are wrong with the data. Hopefully we see some updated data soon in a new offer.