If it is the sensible thing to do, then it should not count against Saab.

Who is counting it against Saab? What they are doing is pursuing a perfectly reasonable, and if anything fairly well-worn strategy.

My point is simply that this is not a case of “the planet’s best stealth fighter,” or first “sixth generation” fighter, astoundingly being developed by on a fixed price contract with only a trivial number of firm orders by miracle workers in Sweden.

This is an extensive update to an existing design using overwhelmingly off the shelf components. That doesn’t mean that the approach isn’t valid or that the end results won’t be impressive, but it is important to have a valid basis for comparison.

If you compare the Gripen NG to previous efforts of a similar nature, such as those I outlined earlier, you will see that Lockheed, Boeing, Sukhoi and others have executed similarly extensive upgrades to existing designs on fairly modest (and in some cases fixed) budgets and on fairly tight timelines. (and in the case of the F-15SA and F-16 Block 60 at least, with a similarly small number of firm orders)

I understand what you mean (and agree to some extend), but keep in mind that in the context of this article “best stealth fighter” doesn’t mean “most stealthy fighter”. Similarly, “not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter” doesn’t mean it is not the best airplane when all features, capabilities and cost are considered.

Sure, and maybe one could make an argument that the world’s best pickup truck is a VW Beetle… Sure it isn’t really a pickup truck at all, but it is really cheap so we should overlook that, right?

The Gripen NG isn’t a “stealth fighter” at all by any reasonable definition.

It has the same sort of modest RCS reductions that have been incorporated into aircraft like the Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter, etc, which are nice to have but certainly don’t qualify those aircraft to be labeled “stealth fighters.”

Yes… well, if you want to continue with the goofball claims, , you can afford to operate 2x Gripen for the (life) cost of 1x F-35…. and the F-35 is not close to being twice as good as the Gripen.

Even the 3x more expensive F-22 isn’t as good as 2x Gripens never mind 3. :dev2:

I am not sure if you are attributing those goofball claims to me or someone else.

There is a place for quantity, as there is one for quality/capability. We have seen aircraft like the F-5 serve with distinction for long decades even while the F-15 has done the same.

I would shy away from claims that airplane X is “worth” 2-3 of airplane Y, or vice versa as there are simply far too many variables to be considered. Which is better? One aircraft that can successfully carry out a specific mission, or 2-3 that can not? Which is preferable, an aircraft that can win a war more cheaply, but while taking higher losses, or one that would also win the war while taking fewer losses? It all depends on assumptions. Sometimes greater numbers and/or lower costs are preferable, other times the reverse is true.

As for the “6th Generation” term, why not? Looking at shrinking budgets, a modern but cost effective solution might be what most Air Forces need currently. What really characterize the 5G from the 4++G is the “radar stealth” thing which might arrive too late on the market (obsolete in a decade?).

Maybe because the Gripen first flew in 1988? …and while the Gripen NG is a substantial upgrade over the original Gripen, it isn’t appreciably more extensive an upgrade than has already been done in the case of the latest F-15s, Su-27/30/35 and so forth.

Maybe because a minimalist, low-cost, fighter is anything but new? (See F-5, Mig-21, or even F-16)

Stealth is a defining feature of 5th generation aircraft. At this point we have more than enough examples, including the F-35, F-22, PAK FA, J-20, and J-31 to recognize that there really isn’t any debate among professionals about the need for stealth on the modern battlefield. The only place where debate continues is in the realm of fan kiddie supporters of companies/countries that don’t have a 5th generation aircraft in development.

Is this remotely possible by western militaries?

Under $100 million? No…

The cheapest possible option would be an adaptation of an airliner. The P-8 probably provides the best example of what that might end up looking like.

It has 11 stations (5 internal) with a carrying capacity of 22,000lbs (2,000lbs per station) and a range of over 4,000NM (though perhaps not with that maximum load), extendable via aerial refueling.

The P-8 costs about $180 million a copy, but includes a lot of equipment that really wouldn’t be useful for a dedicated bomber and that presumably could be removed to achieve a lower price.

According to this page: http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/P-8-Poseidon.html

A P-8 airframe without avionics costs roughly $140 million and thus I think you can take roughly ~$150-160 million as the absolute lowest imaginable price for an airliner-derived bomber.

as Opit said, your “rule of thumb” is meaningless… on a penetration mission, the rafale has a radius of over 1000 nm (meaning, when carrying EFTs, ground ordnance, A2A ordnance to defend itself, etc… all externally, obviously). The F-35 less than 600 (and that is with everything carried inside)

And how exactly do these profiles and load-outs compare? Oh wait, you don’t know…

start hanging stuff underneath the F-35’s wings and your radius will drop even further down, meaning that when you have to attack something that will force the Rafale to go to the extreme limit of its combat radius, the F-35 will only have a one-way ticket if it tries to attack the same target

This of course is incorrect, see above.

The issue here that some seem to be struggling with is that in this comparison the “truck” is substantially more efficient than the car, not the other way around.

This isn’t a question simply of fuel load. Nor (as some who are apparently struggling to keep up have concluded) is it purely an issue of fuel fraction.

With broadly comparable aircraft fuel fraction allows for a valid comparison, but as has already been discussed in this thread at length (for those who have been keeping up), carrying fuel in drop tanks is extremely inefficient and you can’t stupidly compare fuel fractions between aircraft where one is carrying all of its fuel internally, while the other is carrying the majority of its fuel externally.

For a perfect example of this see the F-16 on the slide posted on the previous page, with about 1,000 gallons internal and 740 gallons external (figure 1750 total) it can go 460nmi. Increase that fuel by another 900 gallons (460 more via bigger drop tanks, 440 in the CFT) and you have a 51% increase in fuel load.

How much farther do you go? 37%

Note also in this scenario half of the additional fuel was added via conformal fuel tanks, which are substantially more efficient than drop tanks, and the F-16 is dropping its drop tanks when empty. (meaning if anything this scenario is optimistic compared to the Rafale)

Bigger bombs yes, but I don’t think it will carry them nearly as far. Not even close.

Nic

:very_drunk:

The Rafale in that configuration is far draggier than the F-35. Even if we simply went with the rule of thumb that only half of the fuel in the Rafale’s external tanks was useable (2,400kg) that leaves the Rafale with 7100kg of fuel compared to the F-35’s 8,300kg.

In this scenario it would be awfully optimistic to assume that the Rafale could go nearly as far as an F-35 even if it had with the same amount of fuel. (which it doesn’t)

So you are right about one thing, the comparison wouldn’t be at all close.

I don’t think media bias is unique to blogs, the words are from Michael W. Wynne. And yes he does state that “calculations, neglecting range drag”. I think he knows that 30% more fuel will not equate to equal increase in range. I think he is making the point that USAF is taking several different approaches to extend range.

I don’t know if I will ever stop being amused by the things the F-35’s critics invent.

Every possible report suggest there is some bizarre and terrible aerodynamic problem with the plane. First the F-35 mysteriously (not at all) doesn’t gain enough extra range from drop tanks. The chicken little crowd then takes this as proof that the F-35 suffers from terrible aerodynamic problems that will cripple its range with external ordnance… :rolleyes:

Newflash, all fighters suffer when carrying external weapons and fuel. That is something the F-35 program has tried to explain over and over again, and that boosters of various 4th generation fighters have refused to accept. Now suddenly it is news that the F-35 will see its range reduced when carrying an external load.

Which of these looks more efficient:

This:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226116[/ATTACH]

6 AAM, 6 550lb bomb, 9500kg fuel (4,800kg external)

or this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226117[/ATTACH]

4 AAM, 6 2000lb bomb, 8300kg fuel, targeting pod

Of course the F-35 in this picture will suffer reduced range and performance compared to an F-35 with an all internal load, but relative to a 4th generation fighter the F-35 still has a far cleaner aerodynamic configuration, even though it is carrying 6 x 2,000 bombs while the Rafale is carrying 6 550lb bombs.