I am surprised nobody has commented on this — so basically the tiny, low-cost Gripen with inferior TWR, inferior agility, etc. is a real threat to the air superiority Typhoon due to the EW. With a combination of Meteor and IRIS-T* tiny Gripen C will be a formidable opponent also for a/c like Typhoon and Su-35… that makes me wonder what Gripen E will be!?

*Typhoon has an unpleasant meeting with a Gripen with IRIS-T and HMD:

Google translated from: https://blogg.forsvarsmakten.se/flygvapenbloggen/2014/06/06/verklighetsnara-taktikutveckling-av-jas-39-i-england-meatball-ur-en-pilots-perspektiv/

What is there to say really? We just had a similar discussion about the Rafale and Spectra. EW systems are a marketer’s dream. You can vaguely attribute all kinds of amazing capabilities to one and never have to worry about anyone being able to make a direct comparison to any other system.

The Gripen probably has a very capable EW system, just as all recent Western jets do. How does it compare to the others? Who knows?

It is worth nothing that in exercises nobody is likely showing off the best they have got.

A self defense aam with the primary mission of shooting down (in self defense) medium and long range radar guided missiles aimed at LO platforms…
For Christ sake, no more Port for you mr St. John (either that, or the implications are trully stagering).

And by the way, if this (bellow) is correct it kills the “BVR” CUDA thingy:

I think someone, either the speaker or the author, is confused. These have previously been described as separate efforts and CUDA was described as having superior range to an AMRAAM. (something that would be totally unnecessary for a self defense missile)

Indeed F-16 in that config probably has a quite significant range — however keep in mind the figures quoted above from Sintra for the Rafale was without the CFT.

Of course, no Rafale has CFT.

This whole discussion started with me speculating around what range and loadout capabilities Rafale would get with CFT. Most likely it would be rather impressive. It also has 5 hardpoints to carry heavy stuff — more than other medium sized fighters.

The Rafale would go a long way with CFTs, but the real value here is in freeing up hardpoints. A Rafale has 5 stations that can hold fuel or air to ground ordnance. If it flies with three tanks that leave two air to ground stations. (same as an F-16)

What adding CFT would do is enable a Rafale to go farther with 4x heavy weapons.

In general none of the numbers we are throwing out here are representative of how these aircraft would be flown in a real world scenario. Taking off, flying XXX NM at optimal cruise speed and altitude, dropping a couple bombs, and then flying straight home at optimum cruise speed and altitude only to land with minimum fuel reserves remaining… not such a hot plan for a combat mission.

That is why the F-35 mission profile is so widely misunderstood. People see that ~600NM number and think it is directly comparable to the marketing numbers we are using here but the F-35 profile isn’t at optimum altitude and includes an allowance of fuel for combat in the mission area. (which explains why pilots actually flying the F-35 credit it with substantially longer range than the F-16 despite the apparent inconsistency with their advertised capabilities)

Only the navigational part of the LANTIRN system is internal though, consisting of a FLIR mounted on the nose and terrain following modes provided by the AN/APG-80 radar. The targeting system is still in a pod.

As for drag, the Greek flight manual gives the same basic airframe drag with or without CFTs, sub- and supersonic – quite remarkable imho.

Are we comparing against a Rafale with a targeting pod though? Again, the devil is in the details.

This whole thing is stupid, the Canadians should have bought F-16s or F-15s in the first place, now 35 years later they figured out their F-18s lack range so they want to replace them with F-16s, F-15s, or even more silly….more F-18’s. And you can’t tell me these F-18s have reached their service life because the USAF has F-15s that are older, have much more hours on the airframes, have been flown harder and are still in service and being upgraded for many more years in service. Where as Canadian F-18s don’t even all get used but are rotated through time in storage. And then you have eurocanards which are horribly expensive for no significant improvement, in fact the F-18 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the eurocanards. But if they want to spend money needlessly and get rid of perfectly fine fighters, well, why not.

Really?

You didn’t think to google before posting?

Edit: If my math is correct the Rafale carries 2.5% more fuel internally than F-16 internal + CFT

Which given the F-16’s smaller size and engine would equate to an advantage for the F-16… not a huge one perhaps, but certainly it would be close to the Rafale.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/mideast-africa/2016/03/14/yaalon-israel-defense-package-aid-iran-us-military-very-soon/81769578/

Interesting that they are thinking about more F-15I — probably the F-35 range with full external loadout is not that great? And of course the F-15 can carry more than the F-35 (10,400 kg vs 8100kg). Interestingly the tiny Rafale can carry up to 9.500 kg, just between what the F-15 and F-35 can carry.

Range and carrying capacity… just as I said in the Canada thread, a larger aircraft has an inherently greater capacity to carry large loads long distances. There is no Western fighter that can come close to an F-15E when it comes to delivering large bombs a long way.

Ginner, don’t take this the wrong way but do some legwork. This is open source information. Start with a LOAN nozzle, then look up aerodynamic heating at various speeds.

The best way to look at the IR sig of the F-35 is that the US has stated many times that the focus of LO aircraft design is “balanced observables”- there have been various statements regarding this. In short, there is no point in designing a fighter to have reduced radar detection range and not to treat the IR spectrum. The US philosophy is that LO aircraft should be detectable in IR and EM at roughly the same distance. To that effect, the F-35 includes LOAN nozzle to cool and flatten the exhaust, hide the plume between the twin tails, extensive use of fuel as a heat sink, leading edge cooling, and so forth. Obviously, any aircraft in reheat, or moving at supersonic speeds is going to have a higher IR sig.

… and these efforts are not just limited to RCS and IR. The F-35 incorporates a new generation of datalinks, a LPI radar, etc, to avoid/limit radio emissions as well. Being the stealthiest thing in the sky is always nice, but it is even nicer when you don’t have to fly blind because you can’t use your radar or datalink.