Despite your apparent serious effort, I must say that the available data does not allow to make a detailed assessment of the aerodynamic quality. In the end, both will come out pretty well when clean.
You would help interpreting if you would start quoting the weights first you are using (OEW, Fuel, TOW, Thrust). You’re weight for the F-35 seems far too low.
Then give fuel fractions and the range quoted for the configuration. Your assumptions – true or wrong – will readily become apparent.

If the difference you get is more than 10ish%, you should be very doubtful about your own calculation, maybe trash it and start something more serious.

this is all analysis of the the data given.. its very simple math. and based on predicted ranges. These ranges are predicted by LM and SAAB from Cw, engine data, crosssection etc. so it should not be so far of..
Ok my weight data on F-35 seems wrong, but anything else?

the size comparison are then 91% bigger(13606kg), and still is the vage point the sizecalc. thou the frontalarea is not exactly 91% bigger, more like 80-100%ish..

I think the place of Sweden should be close to the northern pole, isn’t it ?? Therefore, the altitude (28,000 fts) that Gripen Demo achieved this supercruise record might have entered the region of stratosphere.

56-57 degres latitud is a long way from the north pole..the stratosphere is about 10000-11000m or 30000+ft.

What you are conveniently forgetting is the Gripen NG would have to take three large external fuel tanks just to try to make up for the large fuel advantage of the Lightning. Further, let not forget how inefficient it is to carry that external fuel in the first place!!! As a matter of fact you “burn” half of your external fuel just to get it off the ground. So, don’t forget to cut that external fuel of the Gripen in half in your calculations!!!! None of that even touches on the large penalty in Drag, RCS, and Performance that the Gripen NG would suffer compared to the LO and Clean Lightning II………..and the Gripen NG can forget about “supercruise”.;)

Hope you getting your brain some day, nobrainer..
sorry but you cant see the data laid out..

Oh, I well understand the fuel consumption is lb/HR/lb. Which, translates into a .70 lbs per lb of thrust per hour of use! What you guys seem to over look it the Gripen only carries 7,100 lbs of fuel vs the Lightnings minimum of 18,500 lbs. Further, the F-35 operates clean vs external stores of the Gripen. So, the even if the Lightning burned twice the fuel than the Gripen NG. (Which, is unlikely at most altitudes…) It has 2 1/2 to 3 times the fuel in the first place…….

In short let’s say for argument sake……………the Lightning burns twice the internal fuel load of the Gripen NG during the same period. Which, would be 7,100 lbs. That it turn would be 14,200 lbs……….The F-35 carries 18,500 lbs….GET IT:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Note: Who can provide data that say’s a Gripen NG with similar complement of Weapons (air to air – air to ground) is more aerodynamic and fuel efficient than a clean Lightning II……….PLEASE, this is a no brainer!:eek:

If you cant under stands the basics, please read the rangedata…
F-35B 2,000 km
F-35C 3,000 km
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm
Gripen NG
2500km internal
4075km external

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf

That’s a bad joke. All what Volvo added (under GE supervision) to the F 404-412 in order to obtain the RM 12 was some safety features necessary on a single jet engine, thus not present on the original GE engine.

F 414 was specifically designed for the Superhornet. This one had its first flight 1995. Not even the Grippen A was operational then.

It is a long way from barely being apt to assemble engines from Rolls Royce (RM6) P&W (RM8) and GE (RM12) and to improve those high tech items…

many features developed by Volvo in the works of RM12,
safety(birdstrike and rendundace)
Fadec
flamholder etc.
was bought back to GM and implemented in the F414.

Volvo is normally a part of development teams with GM and RR, so they really in the business as in A380, the military engines are only a very small fraction of the total company. the also into rocketengines as Ariane 5..

what chances of it supercruising over the hot and humid Indian subcontinent ? very low I’d say..this supercruise in the cold environs of Sweden can hardly be applied to IAF operational philosophy. besides, it must’ve flown clean, and would hardly be able to supercruise with any meaningful payload.

28000ft is the same temp as about 32000ft over your latitude. 😮

Let’s not forget the F-14 is retired except for in Iran. Yet, the F-4 is still flying in many Air Forces………..

FOOD FOE THOUGHT:diablo:

i wouldnt buy a f-4 or a f-14 either, even thou they both got AESA.. and supercruise

That maybe true yet the Gripen is nowhere close to the F-16 in options or level of maturity…………with a proven record on top of that! 😉

I wouldnt adoubt a 42-year-old just because its dressed as a 15 year-old..