“Saab is to modify 60 Gripen C fighters to the enhanced E-model configuration for the Swedish air force”

So it says, and if true, will offer less performance than a new built.
An alternative is that the wording was meant for domestic consumption, so the entire airframe will be new built, with new electronic architecture,
and only ejection seat and a few other items will carry over.

The whole fuselage, all avionics, the tail, wings and engine are new… calling it an upgrade sounds better in politics. And as always, reality has a tendency to differ from political dogmas.

But the lasers will be more than capable of destroying a missile in flight, with a very high probability of doing so. I wouldn’t go as far say as to say BVR missiles would be obsolete, but they would be seriously outclassed.

How many missiles can you fire at once vs how many missiles can you take down with a DEW?

In other words, NATO members are being saddled with an aircraft in the same class as that which was previously unanimously rejected, and this in an era of much greater spending and facing a far more credible and formidable threat.

But this time it’s both cheap and light weight…

Now put a line on that graph that shows an F-35A with 4 AMRAAMs and only 25% fuel and this would be a valid comparison.

Just like one does when comparing any jet with the Flankers? Oh, wait…

(Su27 has a combat radius of 810nm on internal fuel (970nm+ cruise radius), F35A has 584nm.

Assuming a similar relation for other fighters between max range and combat range we get the following (form FAS).
Su27, max range internal fuel = 4000km/2000km radius and 3000km combat range (1500km radius) => 75%.

Gripen E, range on internal fuel: 2500km/1250km radius => 1875km range, 938km radius => 1014nm range, 507nm radius (with a light load). It is likely to be a little bit lower but at least this gives us a similar benchmark.

F35A on recce mission (similar to cruise radius on fas.org) is advertised as 673nm, the same ratio here is 0,9 => 606nm radius for the F35 (in reality its just below 600nm because of this, 584/590*673*0,9=599,5)

Su27 on internal fuel has combat radius of 810nm.

So a fair comparison (according to you) would be Gripen E with 100% fuel, F35A with 84% fuel, Su27 with 63% fuel and F35B with 127% fuel.

I know this isnt exactly apples to apples but at least all numbers are calculated somewhat equally. The F35 numbers are on the upside (as always).

Btw, 25% internal fuel on the F35 would at best put it at a radius of 152nm. Not exactly a fair comparison is it? The F35 has good range but the difference isnt so vast you have to alter benchmarks for it.

EDIT: If we take the numbers from USN we get this for the Super Hornet.
Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s or ca 638nm radius, it is likely to go down to ca 600nm if you add BVR missiles and time for maneuvering.

Once again, if the F35 should get the special treatment and new benchmarks then so should others.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=C42247D4-36AF-4038-AD33-B559F68AA774
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/su-27.htm

As we can see, all fighters has a wingsweep of 40* or more…but wait, there is an abomination,
we find that one has a wingsweep closer to 30, 33 to be precise.
Much like its predecessor F-117, it has the designation F, but it is not a fighter,
it is an evolutionary subsonic bomber but with much better self defense aid, even able to go supersonic if given enough time.

Dare I say we have one more more abomination?

It looks a bit like 26,5 degrees… ish

Gripen NG is coming too late to take advantage of higher production volume of F414. and top of that there is highly likelihood that final Gripen NG will be heavier than estimated that will decrease its performance/fuel consumption

Even though there are less Super Hornets being built the Tejas Mk2 is picking up speed (some 110+) as well as Gripen E (118 + a very likely production of 68 or more) + T50 in future sales. Its not the same as when the Super Hornet was at peak production but it still is a lot of engines.

We also have the US T-X competition where T50 (again) is likely to be offered with F414.

So the production line may be less than at peak bit but it is still running strong. I’m counting ca 300 engines in current orders and a couple of more down the road.

Eithr way it is cheaper than RM12.

Clearly it is simplified, and must represent a scenario fairly favorable to the Gripen NG, (air to air, and likely at a fairly short distance) but other than that this really isn’t that hard to grasp unless you buy into the APA fanboy business.

Why would it be at a likely short distance? Gripen E, armed, has an action radius of more than 1700km or 919nm. That is not short range.

And when it comes to A2A the EF2000 has the largest radar amongst the eurocanards, low RCS etc. I only see two options, if its accurate then it is binary, otherwise it is illustrative.

Are we sure the F/A-18E/F cannot drop a nuke? What else would the USN use to deliver it’s cache of nukes on board each carrier?

The old Hornets. Dont think the Super Hornet is cleared for it and besides… its only nuclear bombs, not missiles.

Either way. I think that is the only way to describe the chart.