Why is the F-35 “hugely expensive for what is does”? First day of the war strike and/or air to air aircraft have never been cheap: F-111, F-15E/SG/K, F-18F Block II. Aircraft like the Gripen may be cheaper on a per aircraft basis, but what about on a capabilty basis? For example, how many Gripens will you need to give you the same all up strike capability as 10, 25 or whatever F-35s; 1.5 time as many, twice as many?

True, for a variety of reasons a lot of European countries have painted themselves into an economic corner. I can’t see how that’s a failing of the F-35 though.

The thing is many European countries have chosen the F-35 because it was supposed to be a cheap and affordable replacement for the F-16 (or so many were lead to believe).
Had the real cost of the JSF programme been revealed in 2000, I doubt many countries would have joined for the same reason no European countries are operating F-15s.

Now when was the last time were Europeans countries went on the first day of war all by themselves? Even Libya had heavy US involvement. So such a capabilities is more for political reasons than anything else.

And now that the fantasia about the mythic and amazing stealth is finally getting within the realm of reality, it’s not surprising people are starting to wonder about what exactly they’re getting for their money.

Of course the US lobby is still strong and many countries will buy an aircraft they would never have under other circumstances… Which still leave a door open for Gripen to shine since it’s going to be the only western light fighter combat that can really be offered as an successor to the F-16. However the latter still has plenty of cards to play…

You are mistaken.

I have no idea what “signal[s] management” means, because (1) if taken literally, it is so general as to be meaningless and (2) if it is indeed a term of art, it has been kept secret so effectively as to be invisible, on an Internet search or elsewhere.

It’s also somewhat confusing because in plain English “signal” means an intentional act, so it is unclear whether you’re talking about EM scattering from an object, or not.

If you can provide some citations to outside sources using the expression “signal[s] management” in reference to counter-detection technology, it would be illuminating in the extreme.

First of all the debate was about signal processing capabilities and there are a number of available resources on the subject.

You either don’t know how to use a search engine, lack the intellectual capabilities to research a subject or are simply showing bad faith… pick one.

Now can we get back on the topic please?

Can you explain this? What parts of Gripen NG can be switched off remotely by the USA? And how is it that the USA has never demonstrated this capability even with entirely US-built aircraft?

I’m sorry I didn’t express myself correctly. I meant that due to critical US parts present in the Gripen NG like the engine, the US can put a lot of difficulties for the Gripen when and if it’s going to compete with the F-35 (or any other US product for that matter).

I was not talking about some secret button that could prevent the Gripen from working although any suspension in GPS services could prevent many aircraft from locating themselves and releasing their weapons, but that’s another debate.

To get back on topic I believe European countries will opt for the F-16 or F-35, but those for buy the F-16 now will sooner or later switch to the JSF circa 2025 onward…

I think many European countries will buy into the F-35 beyond 2025 when the price will have reduced (we hope) even if they have to buy empty shells because the USAF/LM will pressure them into doing it to reduce the cost of their own orders.
Not every countries have to buy the F-35 with full mission capabilities. And other countries have already reduced their requirement in order to afford the plane even if it means cancelling or reducing other defence programs.

Gripen NG will only work where the US will allow it to, and I hope a few Europeans countries actually go for it, Dassault might become competitive for lower budgets with a simplified version of the Rafale if the Indian deal do go through (as well as Brazil), but it’s still unlikely and I doubt Typhoon has much chances in Europe unless they succeed in reducing its price and get Turkey interested (which I doubt).

Things have changed, latest ICBM have much greater ranges than at the start of the Cold War, the world is no longer bi polar and air forces must tackle a much wider range of threats, most of them having very little do to with opposing high end fighters.

Electronics are way more important these days and recent upgrades in the Viper will keep the F16 relevant for sometimes as well as other upgrades taking place on legacy aircraft all over Europe..

U.K. MoD Eyes Privatized Acquisition