You need to go back to my previous statement which was “Not only it cannot effectively perform the primary job which is air policing/defense/interception…”

There was no mention about F-35 not being able to perform these roles, at all. Effectively means adequately at minimum cost here. In the case of the F-35, both “adequately” and “minimum cost” are questioned here.

I find it peculiar that you get satisfied with the notion that the future aircraft is able to perform these roles as well as Tornado F3 (which it isn’t, IMHO). Even if it was, should that be an excuse to pay $150mil a pop? Why not simply keep Tornados running?

With the F-35, I am missing speed. I am missing agility. I am missing maneuvrability. I am missing range. I am missing loiter times. I am missing extreme kinematics/acceleration throughout the WHOLE envelope not just from 0 to 200 mph. I am missing ability to enter or disengage a fight at will. I am missing an aircraft instead of an Airbus stuffed with blings.

Hell, it’s not even pretty… !!

This is what I want:

and this is what the thing is compared to its future peers:

Don’t tell me you add another six AESA radars and EO systems with million degrees FOV. Deliver me an aircraft which will turn in circles around the J-20 in 2035.

love it 😀

Quite unrealistic. If Italy further reduces the planned F-35s or altogether quits the F-35 program, the alternative would be using the 96 Typhoon already ordered also for Air/Ground purposes (following the same model Germany is pursuing), or eventually buying a small further lot of Typhoons (Alenia is in the EFA consortium, a further order of Typhoons, although improbable, would mean work for more years on the Italian assembly line of the EFA, while any offset granted by buying the Gripen would be doubtful).

Having a single attack/fighter logistic line would mean significant operating cost savings.

So it would be either Typhoon/F-35 or a single line of Typhoons.

it can turn out to be cheaper to fly a gripen and have two sets of logististics than have lots of Typhoon to fly and buy.

ither way i think Italy should scrap the need for more figthers anyway. Do they really need them? for what?
Get those Typhoon they got truly multirole and upgraded, and no more.

And saab with in projects like filur, sharc
though one
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saabs-filur-ucav-demonstrator-completes-brief-maiden-flight-203351/

http://www.deagel.com/news/Saabs-SHARC-Performs-its-First-Autonomous-Take-Off-and-Landing_n000000229.aspx

danish territory

this debate about danmark, dont forget that greenland and Faroe islands are danish and will need at some extent an AF to guaranteeing its sovereignty.

other reference

The Gripen achieved the AoA of more than 100 degrees during the flight test, but due to the reason for flight safety, the normal setting of the upper limit of the AoA for the Gripen?s FCS is 50 degrees now.

This is probably made on gripen A.

I’m puzzled…
Everybody talk about LPI, but nobody seems to know the meaning. Most LPI techniques are decades old, and even mechanical radars make use of some of them. To make the story short, that LPI stuff is a sort of monicker for a set of characteristics/techniques/methods designed to fool receivers (i.e. RWR). No more, no less.
This implies that the end result depends on the receiver. Some might be fooled as expected, while others remain unaffected, or left with degraded performances.

Exactly right!
Some examples
LPI can be shorter pulse length than previos generation, the receiver then needs higher sample rate to detect. (it can also be the opposit! 🙂 there are examples where long exposure time makes up for high energi (like a camera short in the dark) and therefore fool a reciever as noise.
It can be smaller bandwith than earlier generations which also makes longer ranges, which makes the reciver end also needs to have good bandwith resolution.
In AESA the biggest LPI advantage is better control of the beam volume and therefore can be extra cautious when scanning in an area with a known receiver. Or even go passive in this sector (passive triangulation with buddy radar are possible with datalink if ther radar in sector are active)

@Tango:
The link don’t work
Is it just me or does C-23 look like something from WW2 ?

no, ww2 had nice forms like spitfire, this is a schoolbus with wings

I will pose the question again.

Can the Griffin penetrate a sophisticated IADS, Yes or no?
And I don’t mean using stand off weapons, I mean can it put a bomb through a revetment or a Nuclear weapons complex buried into a mountain. The Kind that Most of The U.S. and NATO enemies have?
All the while destroying or avoiding S-300s and Su-30s?
Its Not trolling to simply point out the flaws in the griffin design.
Its Not trolling to discuss How the NG griffin isn’t even flying.
Its Not trolling to point out that your wrong about NEARLY everything F-35.
For Gods sake your basing many of your claims on a failed KPP that missed the margin by a visual range measure. You haven’t proven 1 thing I said wrong. you simply posted a picture of a plane that’s supposed to have some future IOC that no one knows.
can the Griffin get through a sophisticated IADS, Yes or NO?

i would not answer any of your questions because you wont listen anyway?
Only for this time.
“And I don’t mean using stand off weapons, I mean can it put a bomb through a revetment or a Nuclear weapons complex buried into a mountain. The Kind that Most of The U.S. and NATO enemies have?”
How silly is this?
Why use mk82 freefall when you got 5. gen fighters?
“All the while destroying or avoiding S-300s and Su-30s?”
No problems. SU:s one of its main design goal to conquer. it would do that i swarms/meteor/Beamed datalinks etc.. For S-300, at least Gripen more towed decoys. and S-300 regurly use VHF radar, which have no problems spotting a F-35. So i would not go head to head with S-300/400 anyway if i have a F-35. You have to be smarter than that..

“Its Not trolling to simply point out the flaws in the griffin design.
Its Not trolling to discuss How the NG griffin isn’t even flying.
Its Not trolling to point out that your wrong about NEARLY everything F-35.”
Yes, this is the worst kind of trolling i have seen in years.
Gripen have no known flaws. It have proven every requirement by far, so far.
that is much much more than F-35 by the way, which have not passed many of the requirement it set to achieve.
F-35 will be still a good jet, but its no “dreamliner”..