Ahem, dream on. :p

Gripen NG: 16t MTOW, 25.5m2 wing area –> 625 kg/m2
F/A-18E: 20.8t with 2 AIM-9s,45.5m2 wing area –> 450kg/m2 😉

You are aware that you compare MTOW of one aircraft to light AA TOW of another one?

I believe it’s actually more like 3500 kg internal and 1700 litres external; some 1360 kg? (assuming density of 0.8 on the jet fuel).

The Gripen NG has an incredibly low drag in a2a config — consider that it is capable of supercruising at 1.2 mach with 4 AMRAAMs, 2 sidewinders and one drop tank, using a relatively weak F414 engine! Compare that to F-16 that seems to be mainly able to supercruise when it’s clean, in spite of having a stronger engine.

The drop tank adds 1000 km to the range.

I got the “above 1500km radius” estimate as follows: A combat radius of 1300 km with 30 minutes on-station has been published by Saab. I assume that 30 minutes of loiter time can be converted into 400 km extra range; divide by 2 and add to the 1300 and you get a radius of 1500 km. I think Signatory suggested it would be even longer, that’s why I wrote “above 1500”. The drop tank contributes 1000 km to the range. Subtract 1000 km and you get a range of 2000 km on internal only, which gives a radius of 1000 km.

Don’t forget that the NG has 40% more internal fuel than the C version… The F414 is also more fuel-efficient than the RM12.

What ever the ratio is definitely not logical. 1000 km with 3500 kg of internal fuel and then >1500 km (>50%) with one external tank which holds abit more than 1/3 of the internal fuel, while adding drag and weight. The 2500 km range figure on internal fuel matches up very closely with the Typhoon’s range on internal fuel. So a useful combat radius of 1500 km with a larger load of external tanks (not just one) might be possible, but with just one tank I think it’s highly unlikely.

Some news:

First Joint Strike Fighter Test Aircraft Cheaper

(Source: Netherlands Ministry of Defense, issued November 19, 2009)

The first F-35 (JSF) test aircraft [for the Netherlands] is 13.5 million euros cheaper than anticipated, because the current value of the dollar is lower than the budgeted rate, State Secretary Jack De Vries reported today in a letter to the House.

Over the entire production period considered, to 2034, the average unit price of the F-35 is expected to be 49.5 million U.S. dollars. These are F-35As, the version that the Dutch Air Force plans to order. Besides the F-35A, Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35B, the Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) version, and the F-35C, designed for aircraft carriers. These versions are more expensive. Each partner will pay the same price for same device type.

Learning curve

The first JSF test aircraft of the so-called “low-rate initial production” batches are more expensive than the later devices. This is due to the so-called ‘learning curve’, which ensures that the accumulated knowledge and experience with the aircraft make them less expensive to produce.

Adjusted Price

For long-term stability in equipment projects, like those of the F-35, Defence estimated acquisition costs using a “dollar plan” rate of 0.83 euros to the US dollar. However, the dollar value used in the completed contract is 0.71 euros.

Based on the “dollar plan,” the price of the first test aircraft was estimated at 113.2 million euros, but the adjusted price, using the current exchange rate, is 99.7 million euros.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/110077/first-dutch-jsf-cheaper-than-budgeted.html

Funny thing about HARM is that in Balkans in ’99, US fired close to 100 HARMs and wasn’t able to do anything. Then the RAF Tornados came with ALARMs and got the job done in one or two sorties.
It isn’t all in rough figures.
Read ALARM’s attack profile by comparison and you’ll immediately realize why it’s more expensive.
In this context, I think higher price is well justified.

Thx, for MTCR explanation.

It’s not just a matter of the weapon, but the way you employ it and the platform you use it on. Tornado ECRs had a much better pk than the F-16CJ with the HARM, this just changed when they made more pre-emptive launches against expected target coordinates with no radar being active. It was merely meant to keep the enemy AD silent and therefore do what the name of the game is Supression of enemy AD.

You mean Swedish, not Swiss.

It should be rather less than 100. It ordered 204, & is cutting numbers in service to 100, but that 204 includes three losses, & the 28 in Czech & Hungarian service, which were diverted from aircraft originally ordered by Sweden.

I thought there were at least 4 crashes, 5 in total if counting in the first prototype?
I don’t think there will be much less than 100 airframes. 120 A/B were produced and 84 C/D on top of that. To my understanding the Hungarian are new built on top of that, just the Czech ones are diverted. The Flygvapnet plans for 100 C/D with 31 aircraft to be converted from the older A models.

Well the sources about the OLS-UEM speak about a TV channel. It’s also interesting to note that indentification range is given with 15 km, that’s way short of the performance of the Captor in that regards (~40 km).

Well, what else will be available in another 10 plus years??:rolleyes:

UCAVs? And btw who says the financial situation will be better by then? What if it is even more worse? For the Luftwaffe it would be stupid to introduce the F-35 as a Tornado replacement, particularly if they cut back the number of Eurofighters now.

The program did start in June 1989. The flight testing of F-4F (37+15) started in the USA from September 1991 (one year after unification) till September 1992. End 1992 the first modified F-4F-ICE was handed to JG 74.
The Indian MiG-29s from the same time-scale are still alive and kicking Mirage 2000 or F-16A for example. 😎

The german MiG’s are also still alive just in other hands (Poland).