You have still failed to explain how the difference in maximum speed between the five entries makes a significant impact on the interception mission. Especially given that (when armed) there is roughly a 150 Knot difference between the slowest entry (F-18E/F) and the fastest (EF Typhoon). The middle three are all 700~790 knots.
—

Are you sure the Gripen cannot do M2 with 2 Sidewinders for instance ?

Last time I talked to an american aircraft designer he said the fighter jockey will give his right nut for some extra speed when a missile is on his tail.

Mach 1.6+ while carrying 4 AMRAAMs & fuel for 760nmi (ie more fuel for AB use) not fast enough for you?
—

It is more than enough for me, but Mig-31 reaches M3.

First off, the FiAF is already operating a 64 strong fleet of F/A-18C, which is by no any means an inexpensive aircraft to operate. The next aircraft should cost about the same amount or slightly more to operate, according to them. All of the candidates should be able to meet this criteria in O&S costs.

Secondly, it’s been already said by the FiAF that all of the aircraft are about the same in acquisition costs. Don’t believe every figure you read in the Internet.

Thirdly, it’s been often misreported that the acquisition will be of 64 aircraft. Nope, this is a number that has been set according to the current requirements for a fleet of F/A-18C and to set a common baseline. It has been said, that the proposed solutions can include a number of different airframes, weapons, sensors and other platforms. They’ve also repeatedly stated that they’re not looking to replace 64 aircraft verbatim, but are looking for a solution that provides the best capability possible.

Finally, the judging criteria includes not only performance metrics but a prerequisite in the value of defence partnership, this should not be overlooked in the current context. I agree with the first two choices, but the defence partnership criteria might favout EF or Rafale. I don’t see a proposition that favours Gripen.

You have to see that fuel prices have 50 folded in 100 years…and in next 40 years when the next fighter is at the end stages there may be 100 fold increase in fuel price …..so the size does matter…especially as we are not oil producer like Norway.

https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/Petrol_Prices_1896_todate_gallons.pdf

Also our Jyrki Laukkanen sees the Gripen as a strong candidate…and he is the leading aviation expert. He is more concerned about the plane than the fuel cost.

Finland is nowhere close to Israel when it comes to ties and partnerships with US.

I frankly consider maintenance security & independancy to be well jeopardized with F-35: the implications are entirely different than with the current legacy Hornet fleet (which are largely serviced by Patria/Millog…) namely with ALIS and the maintenance hubs, which will be in Europe but outside of Finland, implying significantly decreased control on med-high level servicing. Works for NATO and EPAF.. but Finland? Skeptical.

Most of the other contenders have better cards than LM on this topic. Same for industry cooperation. Finland will be a (late) dwarf in the F-35 program. It will have much better opportunities with BAE/Dassault/Saab (probably Boeing too).

That settles it then….if Finland cannot independently operate a jet it means that Finland is no longer independent…Russia will consider this as a threat and starts a war. Swedish jet won’t have this problem ? Dwarf countries who geopolitically are located too close to their aggressors cannot do what ever they wish.

We still need a plane that we can poke the BEAR with if it gets too hostile right ?

I also find it peculiar that Finland needs 64 multibillion jets..as Denmark, Norway get away with 2/3 or less that amount ?
I mean the days of the Paris Treaty are gone and the prices of the planes have 10 000 folded in half a century or 70+ years.

Yama is correct..there is not even a operator that is able to deliver an aeroplane….2 ventures are mingled in the battle but seem to have almost no sales..prototypes only.

They would have gotten better bang for the buck if they’d chosen 4 PBS TJ100 engines inside the lifting fuselage..like all other fighters have’em..inside.

http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industries/aerospace/aircraft-engines/tj-100-turbojet-engine

Those engines generate together as much thrust as the Jumo 004 but weigh just 1/10th.

Well there seems to be different opinions about it. Painting an aeroplane black does not necessarily make an aeroplane stealth..that is for sure. But the lifting fuselage and the Mark Drela kinda approch to economy is interesting.