Thought this could be relevant to add.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]223986[/ATTACH]

Do note that Dasault only put two EFTs on Gripen in their comparison and three on FA18EF and Rafale. Combat radius in other words is +1700km or +919nm

Ofc it’s from Signatory: http://gripennewsthread.blogspot.se/2013/12/mer-om-brasilien.html

Well, we have SAABs own statements and I think they are fairly credible.

NEW PRODUCT GENERATION
INVESTMENTS FOR INCREASED COMPETITIVENESS

AESA antennas based on GaN(gallium nitride) which i.a. provides a considerably longer range towards small objects and stealth targets.

http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents and Images/About Saab/Investor relations/Financial presentations/2013/Saab_CMD2013_MJohansson.pdf
You wont find anything if you try to find GaAs on their site. It’s all GaN.

Here are two custom searches if you want to try the difference, in google try
Saab Gripen GaAs aesa site:http://www.saabgroup.com (0 hits)
Saab Gripen GaN aesa site:http://www.saabgroup.com (3 hits)

Hopsy, I wont even bother dignifying your response. Read the entire Janes paper and you will have your answers.

Either way… work is progressing fairly well. Meteor is being tested on the Demo aircraft currently.

There is also a nice graph on where the parts come from, it’s nice to see that the US dependence is getting lower and lower.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223917[/ATTACH]

Interesting sidenote on the PAWS-2.

• Automatic cueing of the DIRCM system
• Real time imaging display
• Situational Awareness and Panoramic View

Arent these the same features as the F35 is boasting?

I like the automated countermeasures as well.

Ok so the study from Janes has little to no value depending on who you ask. What about the interview with O’Bryan LM VP in Airforce magazine containing claims defying some of the realities of the physics involved? No value, little value or absolute fact?

I wouldnt say it has zero value. As a comparison it is fairly accurate so if you want to have comparative numbers it is very valuable (despite lagging some data).

O’Bryans vague and physics defying claims have no value for any party, especially for Lockheed as it only portrays the leadership as notorious liars. Similarily the “virtual stealth” comments from Dassault are also laughable.

But as for everything, if it’s verifyable and contains actual comparable data then the claims hold value (the Janes study lives up to this fairly well).

The Janes study is legit. For starters, 20% more installed thrust does not mean 20% more fuel burn. In this particular case it’s 16,4% higher fuel consumption, but in reality the interesting part is how much thrust that is used, and that comes from drag and mission profile.

According to the report the difference in cost for the FA18E/F comes from the fact that the USN Super Hornets are at full operational capability with fairly high sortie rates and the australian figure is from before IOC. Most users would likely end up just above the figure for USN (because of sortie rates and fleet size, the higher they are the lower the CPFH gets). The 8’200 figure for the EF2000 is only fuel as is evident if one reads the report… or at least look a the asterisk in the chart.

Please forgive me for not knowing how to play this game but could you please explain to me how it works?

A study by the, arguably, most prestigeous non governmental group, although sponsored, can be discarded as pure marketing bs but an interview with with a VP for a large weapons manufacturer shall be regarded as an undisputable fact. Am I correct or am I missing something?

The fact that it was ordered by SAAB says nothing about there being any bias towards Gripen. The only thing it means is that SAAB knew that their product would win the comparison so they requested an external source to prove it. This is standard practice.

When you sell a product it is always good to have non users proving that your product is better than the competitors no matter what field we are talking about. As for the actual numbers they are not to be taken as gospel. They are benchmark numbers for a standard AF, the only “hard data” is fuel, and that mean they will have to follow slightly altered standard models like this one (used for Eurofighter).

– 10-15% Consumable Supplies (small parts, wiring, basic electrical
components)
– 20-25% Sortie Aviation Fuel
– 60-70% Depot Level Repair and Systems Maintenance

So it’s not just PR. It is a carefully selected comparison with a known result. There is a reason why the Gripen competitors didnt request this.

I know that’s the case with JAS-39B & JAS-39D, but will it still apply with the F? I thought Saab was marketing the F model similarly to how Boeing markets the F/A-18F. Is is still considered “just the two-seat trainer”?

There is no Gripen F currently. All current orders are for the E.

Points for actually finding a source this time, but that is predictably enough not particularly relevant since we are talking about BFM speeds, and that is as usual an air-show configured F-16 showing transonic-supersonic acceleration…(an impressive performance btw)

LOL

I have provided numerous sources, though again, I suppose you get points for actually admitting that you haven’t been supporting your arguments.

We are talking about acceleration in general, and in subsonic acceleration the F35 barely keeps up with the F16, despite the skewed tactical mnwr wt addition. In transonic acceleration the difference is pretty extreme. Are you now moving the discussion to only be about BFM speeds? (Where all my statements also have been correct btw)

I have provided you with 4 sources to support my arguments about acceleration, you have made one vague reference to the Bowman chart (which isn’t even relevant). Tbh its quite cleat who actually supports his arguments.

And you are still avoiding the questions.
What to you call it when you fill up the gas tanks in a vehicle?
Have I not been fair when I say the F35 barely keeps up with the F16C at acceleration?

Because the last discussion had originated in your pretty unique interpretation of English words. I think you know it and that’s why you moved the discussion away from acceleration to me not giving enough sources (in this case 300% more than you have provided). Every statement I have made has been supported by solid sources and official data.