TBH , i dont think active cancellation is anything more than a myth , unless they can somehow predict frequency of radar pulse before hand.And to be fair , with all the requirements that would be need to perform active cancellation , idont think it can perform any better than cover pulse jamming.

If the aircraft already has a very low RCS, by cancelling part of the pulse, it would reduce detection, and future AI EW systems development with be able to predict the algorithm being used to shift frequency.

I wonder what would be easier for the DIRCM install, popup turret, permanently expose VLO qualified turret, or keep it under an EOTS-like faceted window?

Spring loaded pop-up head positioned on spine behind cockpit would be my choice.

FBW and upengining the F-1 could put the F-1 in the same class as the F-16. The F-16 also has a relatively high wing loading and was designed for high rate of turn, not high AoA maneuver. But once you introduce FBW then large wings with low wing loading become a better option. The reason that the F-1 has such a high wing loading is that with the absence of FBW a jet can be very stiff and so the large tail surfaces compared to the wing area give the F-1 extra control and maneuverability.

The F-16 had a TWR well over 1:1 and LERX.

Only if you regard 0.89 as excellent but then Gripen NG regards 0.88 as good so… Wing loading was also quite high at 89lb/ft^2.

I can make a good guess.

He doese not need to prove anything. That manufacturers often attent to bump range using such method is YOUR assumption. Doesn’t work that way. And it would be silly btw. Real clients have access to those data…

Why wouldn’t they? Rafale clearly did for their 1,000+nm figure. Figures have no meaning unless you know they’re for the same mission profile, which these definitely aren’t.

If it’s expecting combat, i.e. war-scenario, it would definitely drop them to reduce RCS, and maximise time on station.

It’s also false to compare range based on two completely different profiles. Optimum altitude vs climbing and descending between 5,000ft and 25,000ft. So it was never apples to apples from the start. You not only have to factor in the increased fuel consumption at lower altitudes but also the diagonal distances in climbing and the increased engine workload during the process. Once you do that the F-35’s DTs combat radius at optimum altitude is well over 800nm and more still if you drop the tanks, which you wouldn’t ordinarily do on a routine surveillance mission.

Me, no. There’s no conspiracy of greed

What do you call carefully planned tax avoidance then? What do you call price-fixing cartels? The revolving door system? Corporate sponsorship of election campaigns, particularly in the US? Companies are basically buying policies and politicians. Unless all this accidentally happened, then it was done deliberately and is hence a conspiracy by virtue of the very definition of the word.

the range figures were for combat patrol 800 nm away with over 30 minutes on station,
if a fight occur, it will drop tanks, fight, and return home after missiles are depleted, presumably.
guessing 30+ minutes on station equals 100-150 nm range

If it’s expecting combat, i.e. war-scenario, it would definitely drop them to reduce RCS if nothing else, and maximise time on station. Can you prove it retained the DTs? What is the range on internal fuel? What was the mission altitude? Did it include flying at 5,000ft?

Gripen NG has a very poor internal fuel fraction, inferior even to the Rafale/EF.

One way range on internal fuel is only 2500km, which is 675nm each way, with no time on station, at optimum altitude and no weapons and no T-O/landing.

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf

So that leaves about 500nm with 30 minutes on station with weapons, including T-O/landing at best, while F-35 manages 760nm. Double fuel with 3 DTs and add weapons and you only start approaching the claimed figure if you drop the tanks. Drop down to 5,000ft and climb up to 25,000ft a couple of times and that will soon drop too.