Good, now we are getting somewhere, now just give us the name of these
“big sensors” that F-35 has but no-one else has ?

There are probably several techniques to find things that are hidden, e.g. things like Carabas:

Carabas enables foliage penetration, wide-area surveillance and automatic target detection.

The Carabas system, based on change detection and synthetic-aperture radar technology, uses the VHF-band offering unique features compared to other ground surveillance systems. Carabas pinpoints the exact position of targets irrespective of weather, light and camouflage conditions.

They cannot hide
A high-quality photograph or a microwave SAR image of the ground shows almost nothing of what is hidden in a forest or concealed beneath camouflage netting.

Carabas uses SAR technology but exploits the 20–90 MHz frequency interval in the VHF band, and since our system uses this part of the electromagnetic spectrum, it observes the target area differently. Carabas signals penetrate foliage without reflections through all vegetation types and man-made camouflage.

The system can sense any concealed ordnance – trucks, tanks and artillery – with dimensions of more than one metre. The location of the ordnance is pinpointed to within one metre in real time.

and Scarab:

The Scaled Carabas (Scarab) option includes a vertically polarised lower UHF-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (at 140-360 MHz) as an add-on for the Carabas product. In an interval around the Brewster angle, the major part of the transmitted radar energy penetrates the soil.

In addition, the wavelength of the refracted beam is shortened by the refraction (to around 20-30 cm), making it possible to image smaller objects than what is possible with the transmitted wavelength above the surface. Underground imaging and detection of decimetre-sized objects – a much sought after application – is therefore possible.

The Scarab option relies on several innovative technological breakthroughs and methods for miniaturisation of the radar and antennas – enabling a full and complete sharing of radar electronics between Scarab and the original Carabas in a single compact unit.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Sensor_Systems/Reconnaissance_Systems/CARABAS/Features/

AFAIK Saab can offer something similar as a pod solution for the Gripen NG, this was mentioned in conjunction with the Gripen IN offering to India.

I would be very surprised if the F-35 did not use similar techniques — perhaps in a different part of the frequency spectrum and a different implementation.

How does Iraq’s bread and butter relate to the Danish fighter competition?:confused:

Highly relevant — How many times have Denmark been attacked since WW2?

0, zero, zilch, nada

How many wars (and which) have Denmark been involved in since WW2?

I leave that as an exercise to the reader to figure out 😉

It was not that difficult, and i did not imply it eighter.
This is a moot point. Even Iran will be a walk in the park. Just send in a ballpark of cruise missile first(which NATO did not bother in Libya), and then the clean-up can start.

What!?

In the opening days of the assault on Libya, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a barrage of at least 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles to flatten Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses and pave the way for coalition aircraft.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/cruise-missiles-missile_n_840365.html

In addition I believe a small number of Scalp missiles were launched?

Out of production in likely timeframe perhaps?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/february/0215aero-F-16V.html

Perhaps not.

Or perhaps Dassault & Eurofighter didn’t get the same information than Boeing had.

Nic

I strongly doubt that.

They most likely received the same information. but for whatever reason they decided to act differently.

Norwegian MoD confirms that the F-35 will be significantly more expensive to fly than the F-16, however costs will be kept managable by relying more on simulators:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adressa.no%2Fnyheter%2Fokonomi%2Farticle3302251.ece

So the planes will fly 8000 hours per year (1000-2000 hours less per year than the F-16), and cost 915 – 1075 million NOK per year compared to 540 – 700 million per year today (all in 2012 NOK). It will be interesting to see if these estimates hold.

I’m not sure if not fitting infrastructure was a reason or not. But they certainly never endorsed the Gripen- that’s a myth being propagated. This link states exactly what Boeing said when they withdrew.

Boeing withdraws Super Hornet from Swiss contract race

I found the source of this “myth”:

Gripen Endorsed

Posted by Robert Wall 5:00 AM on Jun 10, 2008

Saab’s Gripen “would probably be a pretty good pick” for Switzerland. It may not be gushing language, but it’s how Mark Kronenburg, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems’ VP for international business sizes up the Swiss competition.

With Boeing having decided not to bid in Switzerland, the comment is going to further irritate officials promoting the Typhoon and Rafale. They were already furious that Boeing claims it pulled out of Switzerland because the partial F-5 fighter replacement wasn’t a good fit for the twin-engine Super Hornet. Gripen is the only single-engine competitor, and Boeing’s rationale was seen as aimed at undermining Typhoon and Rafale.

One of the big reasons Boeing decided not to bid was linked to the F/A-18E/F’s radar. The strike fighter is now offered only with an active electronically scanned array, but Switzerland wasn’t looking to spend the money on that capability, Kronenburg says.

Boeing’s nice words for Gripen are likely to be a rare exception, though. The Super Hornet is up against Gripen in several other markets, including Denmark and India.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScrip%2520t&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253aa9e8f03f-ca68-449a-8dfa-d8d2738879c4

I also suggest you read the the text in bold above, and think about what we know about the cost of SH (with AESA) compared to the cost of Rafale and Typhoon (with our without AESA…)