It isn’t just tracking. Tracking is just one part of the problem. (and not nearly so easy one as you seem to believe)

As for what an F-35B can do at its max combat radius, how about drop bombs on a defended target? :confused:

However, new engine + airframe dimensional changes + new sensors + new mission computers in a single program are rare indeed, and of course none of your examples meet those criteria. F-20, F-2 and Super Hornet are closely comparable, but most would regard them as new aircraft.

Oblig – If you look back to the run-up to Switzerland’s decision, the Swiss insisted that Sweden buy the aircraft at the same time and take first deliveries. Sweden has a force of very new C/Ds (those that were A/Bs were complete rebuilds) and was in no rush (certainly pre-Crimea) to replace them.

So basically you decide what constitutes a “new aircraft” and every example of an upgrade that was more extensive than the Gripen NG is a “new aircraft” and can’t be compared… meanwhile any aircraft that doesn’t include dimensional changes, yet another new criteria you have no decided to introduce, doesn’t count either. :rolleyes:

Here is yet another example, the J-15. It is based on the Su-33, but as an unlicensed derivative includes all new avionics and engines.

The J-16 would also likely make the cut, though details are sparse it includes some structural mods and supposedly extensively upgraded avionics.

Anyway, for something so “rare indeed,” we don’t seem to be having any trouble making a nice list of them. :confused:

Strike Eagle, airframe structural mods, avionics and numerous other enhancements.
F-16 Block 60, airframe structural mods, all new cockpit, all new radar, all new EW system, internal flir, uprated engine.
F-15SA, new flight control system, new radar, new EW system, IRST, new missile warning system, two additional weapon stations enabled.
F-2, new wings and substantially new structure, new avionics including new radar.
Super Hornet, all new airframe and engines, retained some avionics.
Mig-29M, Su-30MKI/MKM, Su-35, J-15, J-16…

In this company the Gripen NG is neither the least extensive nor most extensive in terms of its overall scope.

Your grasp of emojis is impressive. That’s about all. I’ll just leave you on the ignore list.

Actually, the best analog that I can think of is F-102 to F-106. Your own examples fall short of that by a long way.

Well that is one simple way to avoid the problem of people poking holes in your arguments. :highly_amused:

:stupid:

This is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. Rather than just admit you were wrong, you want to bicker. ( I do find it amusing that replacing the entire flight control system in the F-15SA counts as a “straight upgrade” in your world. :rolleyes: )

Saab moved the landing gear on the Gripen to make room for more fuel and revised the internal structure. Its a good idea, but hardly earth shaking. They added an off the shelf engine to offset some of the weight growth and updated the avionics, again good ideas, but nothing revolutionary.

In terms of overall complexity the Gripen NG program is on the high end for an upgrade but hardly in uncharted territory. All of the examples I listed, while each slightly different, are directly comparable.

If you want to toss in yet another example try the F-2. There you keep an engine, but get an extensively redesigned airframe and avionics.

If you like older stuff try the Kfir, or FG.1 or FGR.2. :eagerness:

Gripen is brilliant on a bangs per buck basis. And SAAB seems to be much better at keeping to schedule than other OEMs. Not perfect: I think either Gripen A or Gripen C fell 3-6 months behind schedule. Have not heard of SAAB going over budget on Gripen but on one development they did the job under budget. Dealing with SAAB on Gripen development must be paradise compared with at least some other OEMs. They are pretty reliable. Conmmissioning SAAB to do a job is unlikely to give you nightmares.

From Wikipedia:

The first Gripen was rolled out on 26 April 1987, marking Saab’s 50th anniversary. Originally planned to fly in 1987, the first flight was delayed by 18 months due to issues with the flight control system. On 9 December 1988, the first prototype (serial number 39-1) took its 51-minute maiden flight with pilot Stig Holmström at the controls. During the test programme, concern surfaced about the aircraft’s avionics, specifically the fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS), and the relaxed stability design. On 2 February 1989, this issue was dramatically highlighted with the crash of the prototype during an attempted landing at Linköping; the test pilot Lars Rådeström walked away with only a broken elbow. The cause of the crash was identified as pilot-induced oscillation, caused by problems to the FCS’s pitch-control routine.

To rectify the problem, Saab and US firm Calspan introduced major software improvements to the aircraft. A modified Lockheed NT-33A was used to test these improvements, which allowed flight testing to resume within 15 months following the accident. The programme was again hindered when, on 8 August 1993, production aircraft 39102 was destroyed in an accident during an aerial display in Stockholm. Test pilot Rådeström lost control of the aircraft during a roll at low altitude, and the aircraft rapidly stalled, forcing him to eject. Saab later found the problem to be high amplification of the pilot’s quick and significant stick command inputs. The ensuing investigations and flaw rectification delayed test flying by several months, resuming in December 1993.

The original Gripen development program was anything but problem/delay free.

So again, where does this supposed reputation come from? Where did everyone get the idea that Saab isn’t subject to the same forces as the rest of the industry worldwide?

The Gripen NG, as an upgrade program heavily relying on already developed technology, is relatively low risk and I don’t foresee major issues. That said, this type of update has been done several times before on fixed price contracts and without major issues so why do some so desperately want to promote the program as more than it is?

Raytheon unveils all-new GaN antenna for Patriot.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235964[/ATTACH]

The radar improves upon the older “space-fed” system, in which a single transmitter generates a large amount of power and pushes it through a transmitting array. The array then acts like a lens and focuses the energy into the battlefield. The AESA radar, by contrast, has multiple, individually powered transmitters behind each element of the radar — a design that allows better control of the beam and helps the radar track multiple targets simultaneously.

Another key component of the upgrade is gallium nitride, a semiconductor substance that amplifies high-powered radio frequency signals at microwave frequencies. Gallium nitride, commonly called GaN, enables Raytheon to outfit systems with smaller antennas, providing flexibility, greater transportability and lower operations and maintenance costs.

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/patriot_aesa.html

Well, yes, something did take longer than expected. The payment from Sweden. Again, if your client tells you that he will delay payment so please delay the delivery, are you or the company you work for going to deliver on the original schedule anyway without having received the down payment? If so, can you give us your business contact info so we can all take advantage of this generous business policy?

And the sixth generation moniker came from an unrelated third party. Bill Sweetman. While his biases are well known, he is not a Saab employee nor did Saab hire him to write an advertorial. What, is Saab supposed to exercise editorial control over what he wrote? Saab itself never called the Gripen NG that. The most it has done is acknowledge, once that I know of, that yes, someone has called it so somewhere and then they moved on to other things.

I just find the attitude of many around here amusing. Everything Saab does is brilliant, everything is revolutionary, they are never late, always on budget, etc etc.

I can’t blame Saab for what cheerleaders in the press decide to write, and if I were them I would take advantage of free marketing as well.

I like the Gripen NG. I would actually like to see the US ANG consider picking some up for use in air policing… but around here Gripen fans seem more than a little insecure. Any hint of criticism and they go nuts.

I wrote

You wrote

Would you like developers to fund development out of their own funds to stick to an original schedule when the principal has decided to change the schedule? If the principal pushes the timetable to the right, payments will be shifted to the right, won’t they? The contractor is supposed to produce what was agreed with the principal when the principal wants it produced. May not be the way all companies do things but SAAB is hardly worthy of blame for doing what it is asked to do.

So as of a year ago the plane was supposed to fly this year. Now it isn’t even scheduled to roll out until next year. That isn’t a delay of course because Sweden decided they didn’t want their first plane until 2019.

So they what? Sent all the engineers and technicians working on the first prototype on a extra vacation? What about the various long-lead items they had to have ordered a couple years ago?

Essentially what you are saying is that the entire development program came to a halt because Sweden decided not to mail its next check on time.

If that is true then it is an idiotic way to run a program.

Of course it can’t be the case that something mundane happened like things took longer than expected… not in Sweden, land of magic where an upgrade to a 4th generation fighter becomes a 6th generation fighter. :rolleyes: