Almost a decade and a half ago SAAB was working on a multi-static system (the Associative Aperture Synthesis Radar) with an accuracy of 1,5m, with the beauty that the target RCS was pretty much irrelevant. The system followed the RCS shadow/black hole behind the target, it had also quite a few drawbacks (forget “locking” the target, by example), unfortunately the development was curtailed around 2000/2001.

It was receiving funding until 2005, when the R&D budget for the defence research agency (FOI) was massacred as a result of the budget set out in 2004. Might have continued for awhile as a internal project by Ericsson (now SAAB EDS).

I wonder where signtory went 🙁 Hope it is not health related.

Is DSI confirmed?

All I’ve seen is a Bill Sweetman (which probably makes it true — he has a good track record) mention it in an article.
(A part from a SAAB mockup, which has a lot of structural changes from Gripen apart from DSI to for e.x. the canards and wing – much more changes than what has been proposed for Gripen E/F – unlikely to represent how the the E/F will look)

Supercruise isn’t just for speed but also to reduce the IR signature as such improving stealth.?

In addition to IR it is also important for radar signature. The RCS of the plume caused by afterburner is sigificant from the side / rear.

Small snippet about the ongoing research with FS 2025 (Flygsystem 2025, replacement of FS2020 / Flygsystem 2020).

Semi-accurate google translation:
‘In order to create capacity for the development of the Gripen fighter, other aircraft systems and next-generation avionics systems require balance and activity throughout the life cycle from research to the knowledge of the current system. Technology development is carried out against a target image and requirements definition for next-generation fighter aircraft concept, currently planned for 2040th Assumed target as “Aviation Systems 2025” (FS 2025) and the purpose of the time in 2025 that focus depends on the weight of a concrete target with relevant horizon, especially with regard to developing the concept. 2025 means that the maturity of the technology would have been reached at that time for relevant technologies for transfer to the Gripen or future concept, as well as manned unmanned. Development and demonstration of future technologies entails discretion and risk reduction, creating cost-effectiveness in the long run. Due to new Gripen needs a successful transmission occurred already by not fully mature technologies. Need for a continuing transfer can be predicted.’

Except that the RWR component of SPECTRA is accurate enough to create a proper track and generate a firing solution (only the F-22, F-35 and F/A-18E/F also have this ability).

Current Gripen RWR antennas have < 1 deg. accurancy. However, older ones which did not use interferometry had 7 deg RMS.

I think the reason the airforce is surprised is more of the lines that alternative B would be upgrading existing airframes, while C1 would include new airframes.

I’m interested to find out how much the C1 airframes differ from the current C/D one though.