Let alone additional empty space designed in with future growth in mind and the replacement of existing systems by newer ones. One wonders how so many goodies has been integrated into the teens, if that logic is applied. Of course there are limitations.

one example of miniaturization http://www.aacmicrotec.com/index.php/technology/miniaturization-how-small-is-small.html

This is 2010 where for 4 decades wingloading is only really usefull in scaling identical/near idetical designs. Since the 1970’s, wing area (from which wing loading is derived) no longer accurately respesents the actual lift of most combat aircraft.

Just as an example…compare the wing loading of the F-16A & the Mirage 2000 vs their respective agility.

You right, but there are differences and not only wing loading. Wingloading is a simplified way to look at it. But that makes f-35 better than every other? 446kg/m2 have alot more to prove thats for sure..

Its called a lifting body…

a big belly is a lifting body 😀
LOL
a blended wing body and tunneling etc have liftbody effects, not a fat crosssection for storing arms.

Dream on. Just look at the F-22 – or are one of the ignoranuses who insist it is a dog too…

LOL! why does a stealth figther need bigger engines for traveling slower?

No they can not – there is only so much space available.

have you ever heard of electronics miniaturization and moore´s law?

Operating costs are tricky, it’s the same as with aircraft costs! Most numbers floating around the internet are quoted out of context. You need to know how these operating costs are calculated and therefore what is included. Otherwise you’ll end up with an apples vs oranges comparison as Opit pointed out.

I seriously doubt that a Gripen will cost just 2500 $/h to operate if you factor in all variables! Even the same type of aircraft can cost more or less to operate depending on the customer! Operating an aircraft itself is not just about paying for the fuel to fly, it’s about procuring and maintaining all necessary ground equipment to operate that aircraft, it’s the personal to maintain, fly, the aircraft which has to be paid and running a unit costs even more, you need suppliers, personal managers, mission planning etc. How often do you need to inspect the aircraft and what is done in such a scheduled inspection? How often are parts exchanged, how expensive are those parts… How intensively are you using the aircraft? How often will you upgrade it over its lifetime and how extensive and expensive will those upgrades be? There are countless factors you have to take into account and if everything is factored in you can believe me that 2500 $/h misses a lot of the things which are necessary to operate an aircraft! If you exclude things like costs for the ground equipment, personal cost etc. then you can arrive at such low values, but it won’t be the complete picture and is subsequently misleading when you try to assess the real costs to operate an aircraft fleet.

To put this i prespective
One of Gripens biggest designgoals was to be at least 40% cheaper than Saab Viggen. Viggen was in its time, cheaper than F-16A.

Gripen C/D was to be cheaper than A/B (probably less service intensive, better supplychain, avionics etc).

And a designgoal for Gripen E/F(SwAF NG) is to be cheaper than C/D (Think this is the last step from 3000USD to 2500USD). Which probably not be any problem due to PESA vs AESA(gracius degradation) and RM12 vs F414G.

Due to this is a big design goal(with its type validation), and sweden have a rather cost sensitive to its defenceexpences. I dont think they could ever got away with any hidden costs. Remember this is SwAF that calculated these costs, not SAAB.

any more sources on this one?

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-orders-radar-to-track-movement-in-thick-forests/641253/

is it reliable?

Absolutely. The Brazilians reportedly considered Gripens operating costs far more than the Swedes initially pitched them as.

well, if a company garantee a minimal cost. (with its enormous penalties if not true).
A higher cost claim by any goverment is only a political game.

The cost is ofcouse related to the different missionprofiles, and those figures comes from how SwAF flies them. But more than doubling the cost due to different flight profile seems too much.

There are NO plans for a 2-seat version of the F-35… nor of the F-22!

Especially not a “T” version!

:rolleyes:

because they will hang their ordnance INSIDE the airframe. Then, when you shape it well and use RAM, you get an overall RCS that is low. Put drop tanks and external pylons with AMRAAM and JDAMs or LGBs on the F-22 and pfftt ! its RCS will spike up to a degree that for all practical purposes, the F-22’s LO stealthy airframe will not be a big factor anymore. It will most likely be seen by other modern radars at ranges that will mean no advantage of stealth whatsoever.

the Su-35 won’t need to carry drop tanks, so that is an advantage that its airframe has, which when treated with RAM or intake blockers will lead to a significant drop in its RCS. Nevertheless Sukhoi doesn’t go around trying to pass off treated Su-35s as being LO the way the French talk about the Rafale’s RCS. A smaller fighter with some minimal LO shaping (like the Rafale) with a drop tank is a totally different kettle of fish as compared to a clean Rafale whose RCS is what is advertised as part of marketing. If a regular fighter radar can detect a 5m2 target at anywhere more than 100 kms, then a 3m2 or 3.5 m2 target will be detected at a significant distance as well. There is no huge advantage worth talking about.

its not for no reason that the F-35 is designed to carry such a lot of internal fuel and even most of its ordnance. The trade off is a larger airframe with its associated drag and performance penalties, but LM thinks its worth the reduction in RCS for a true VLO platform. Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG, etc. cannot be compared in this respect in a real sense for a typical mission loadout.

All eurocanads are rated more or less at 0,1m2.
with AoA ordinance this will be alot less rcs than a 5m2 MKI.
i dont think you can argure with that..
When it comes to ordinance Meteor, KEPD and a some are said to be “stealth”

Ofcourse this is not when hanging on a jet, due to reflexions, but i really think they also have considered those reflexions.

Probably, but nobody really know right? The problem is, be it engine, radar, or IRST, all these key techs are foreign and Saab is just a customer. Without approval of their manufacturers, it will be difficult to provide ToT. Sure most of the fighters will be licence produced with ToT anyway, but that doesn’t mean that key techs will be provided and that makes the difference.

With heavy weapons (heavy bombs, or cruise missiles), the Gripen can only carry 2 fuel tanks right? Compare that to F18SH, or Rafale and you will see the difference, also discussed in the Rafales for Brazil thread.
Diversification of weapons, lower RCS, better avionics, there are many reasons why deep strike capabilities in MMRCA are important to supplement the MKI, be it in A2A, or A2G.

I think Kramer pointed it out pretty well, that most of these competitions have political, strategic, or as you said economic aims. In addition to his points, the EF outclassed all other fighters in A2A combats in Singapore and the Rafale proved its A2G qualities too, but at the end that all doesn’t matter although these fighters was prefered by their forces.
Even in the Swiss competition now, Gripen NG might be more than they need, but as the reports also shows, Saab can’t offer comparable offsets like EADS, or Dassault.
You can see the same in Brazil too, maybe Gripen NG would be enough for them, but the dependence on US parts that they have and the lack of strategic advantages that Sweden can offer to such an emerging country, are undeniable problems. No matter if the Gripen NG would be comparable to Rafale in technical terms, these competitions are about much more.

Gripen was not in the singapore competion, due to single engined.

No reports that i seen points in EADS better ToT in Swiss, just the opposite rafale and Gripen is winners here.

Brazil is “one man dictatorship” (pardon me) in this deal, and seems to me not a fair deal.

why buy american in every other way(C130, etc etc.) and then in the Gripen case avoid US parts? :rolleyes:

Selex as the Radar and IRST is in the deal with its part of ToT and as for many normal companies “wants this deal” and goes very far. GE is something else due to americans restrictions. But thats the case with f-18 and F-16 as well.
In my world, its better to spread risks, and that is the case for gripen. Its part swedish, part american, part english and part rest of the world.
due to flexibility in the systems and source codes, noone is “safe” longterm..