I guess it’s hard to assess with out seeing the report, but given their track record with gripen/f-35 economics, personally i assess the credability of the norweigan report as somewhat mediocre. But then again, the combat effectivness simulations might have been based on more sound arguments, or even carried out by another team/consultant firm.

Even if we assume some of the posters here are right and they had already decided to beforehand to go with the Gripen due to it being the cheapest, it would still be downright stupid not to have multiple contractors fight for the contract, conduct evaluations etc…

For the very simple reason that it gives incentive for SAAB to give a better price.

Regarding 5G fighters having a ‘bow-tie’ RCS pattern. Ever considered the RCS of the exhaust plume caused by afterburner? Not pretty.

Inspiration from P.106? Do you have a source for that or is it just a figment of your imagination? Because IMHO it sounds more probable that it was a continutation of SAABS previous delta-canard design, the Viggen. Not inspiration from a company that never produced a similair aircraft.

Having skimmed through that FOI report, I have to agree with datafuser that the report is not a very good source for the 0.1 sqm. figure. (Not saying it is inaccurate, but the source provided is pretty thin)

The Kuznetsov group stayed in international waters for the entire exercise.

Yeah, but insides Norways EEZ, ~4km away from the Troll platform (Which accounts for ~60% of Norways gas reserves). Parking carrier groups in another countries EEZ is not illegal but considered.. well.. “unfriendly”.

From what I can see that image snippet you posted from Janes states that Gripen C/D did not pass 4 of the 13 tests when benchmarked against Hornet.

Is there any data for NG as well or was the evaluation just for C/D ?

In other A-A scenarios even gripen A have made a really good competion against Finnish F/A-18.

Really good is almost an understatement