Hah, something for everyone in that graphic isn’t there? :applause:

Saab ranks the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Super Hornet as essentially tied both in both price and performance, and includes Gripen NG as slightly ahead in performance but of course way ahead in price. (seems more than a little optimistic on both counts, but then it is marketing… )

If that weren’t enough… all of the above were ranked ahead of the Su-35 in both price and performance, and well behind the F-35, PAK FA, and F-22 in performance.

Saab at least ranks the F-35’s performance as essentially tied with the PAK FA and of course safely ahead of the Su-35. (cue angry letters from the APA crowd…)

It is interesting that even in a marketing presentation Saab doesn’t try to deny the performance advantages of the 5th generation designs. (Proving that they are at least more reasonable than some around here… :rolleyes:)

Look again and you will notice that the red dotted line is lined-up with the Eurofighter, and that the Rafale and SH are slightly higher on the capability. Thus the implication is that Saab claims the NG is slightly ahead of the Typhoon on capabilities, but not ahead of the Rafale and SH. This is marketing speech and the differences on the capability axis seem to be minor. Also it seem they claim Su-35 is on the same capability level as Gripen NG, Typhoon, Rafale and SH, not below.

The interesting thing is that they indicate F-16 is significantly behind NG/Rafale/Typhoon/SH/Su-35 in capabilities… a bit surprising perhaps but it may explain why the F-16 has lost out in India, Brazil, Switzerland, Malaysia, and a few other places. It also confirms my “world view” that the F-16 is a 4.0 gen a.c. and NG/Rafale/Typhoon/SH/Su-35 are 4.5 gen.

Why do you think the life cycle costs claims are unrealistic? One of the main aims of Saab was to break the cost curve — a few things seem to indicate that they have actually succeeded in that.

This is a serious question for the future. Because most comparisons I have ever seen are F-35 against F-16. But F-16 is not the threat the F-35 will be facing in the future, J-20, T-50, J-21 are..

Thus I am challenging your original post in which you are stating that [let me quote you] “especially considering the steadily dwindling importance of close turning fights.” In my opinion, with every new VLO design emerging on the market, the close turning fights are gaining more and more importance as teh classic radar-guided BVR fight will have become obsolete.

I agree that looking at scenarios where F-35 is facing 4. gen a.c. are probably the not most interesting ones.

However, the problem is; what are the alternative to F-35? Rafale? Typhoon?

IMHO: The most important parameters are

* sensors and sensor fusion
* “stealth” (low RCS, IR signature)
* Missiles and missile performance
* networking
* advanced EW capabilities

Other parameters like turn rates, acceleration, etc. are less important.

F-35 scores way above and beyond all 4.5 gen a.c in the above list, with the exception of missiles where the 4.5 gen a/c should be on the same level.

If I were to meet a bunch of PAK FAs I would much rather be in the latest version of F-35 than the latest Rafale, Typhoon or SH. Just sayin’.

Will “close turning fights” return? Well, I don’t think so. Perhaps “WVR fights” will return, if two VLO fighters having similar RCS and IR characteristics meet; however due to modern off-bore missiles my guess is that “close turning” will not return, instead the figher having a slight edge in sensors and sensor fusion and missile capabilities most likely will have the edge.

F-35 may not be the best fighter in all scenarios however it does not really help to use that argument to consider even weaker fighters….

Knowing Boeing’s capability in LO design, I have no doubt that F-15SE would have an RCS equal to or slightly better than PAK-FA and equal to J-20.

In order to make such a comparison you need to know not just Boeings capability in LO design but also the Russian and Chinese capabilities in LO design.

Could you please elaborate on the Russian and Chinese capabilities in LO design?

I find it very strange that they refer to NK as an argument for going with the F-35 and not the F-15SE — looking at the capabilities NK got, I struggle to see what use they really have for the F-35?

OTOH I can imagine that they may want the F-35 to play an important part in forming a credible deterrent against China and Japan…

Norway should have 52 F-35 by 2030 — a “bigger” air force than the Netherlands!

Perhaps PAK FA will face even more issues than the F-35?

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-09-20/various-obstacles-confront-russias-t-50-project

sigh.

When will this useless discussion end?

On the one hand, there is no doubt that the F-35 will eventually become an incredible fighter with world-class sensors, sensor fusion, and stealth, second to none, ensuring high performance and survivability.

On the other hand, the capabilities of the F-35 DOES NOT in any way diminish the capabilities of the Rafale. The Rafale will remain one of the most capable and survivable 4.5 generation jets on this planet for many many years to come.

Errrr.. we are at the very beginning, again. As stated before, you are extremely USAF oriented. All the time we are discussing this bird you got only one mission in mind – long range deep strike. That is why you disregard transonic acceleration when clean, that is why you focus on stealth, sensor fusion, integrated avionics…

Again, my standpoint is completely different: an European air force covering a relatively small country, with primary missions of interception, air policing and air superiority. A-G work of secondary importance.

What does it mean? long range is mostly useless, aircraft are launching lightly loaded (two Fox-3, two Winders, one bag). Transonic acceleration and agility with light load are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Stealth and sensor fusion are not mandatory, A-G work can be covered by stand-off missiles. As you can see, all first-day-of-war-striker qualities of future F-35 are of almost zero importance here. The plus points the bird gets for advanced sensors are immediately lost due to poor kinematics, hence the +10% score.

It is unimportant whether F-35 will be more or less advanced than Typhoon or Rafale.. For the purpose listed this bird is the worst choice of all.
Comprende?

With that mission profile I would recommend the Gripen NG since even Rafale would be considered overkill; lo and behold Switzerland did choose Gripen NG 😉

Back in the real world; the UK, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Japan, Israel, are all committed to the F-35 even if IOC has not yet been reached. You can always claim it’s due to politics and these countries were “forced” to buy US equipment however the problem with that argument is that there are other US options available; the SH, and the F-16V (and the F-15 of course but that one is with the notable exception of Korea probably more expensive than the F-35).

Also Belgium has shown interest in the F-35…

For Rafale, so far it’s France, and perhaps India (if they choose to sign). They may score 1-2 sales in the ME. And maybe Brazil. But that’s about it.

Face it; the future belongs to the F-35 (and perhaps Gripen NG as a low-cost but modern alternative for Western-oriented countries).