1] the photo is from the norwegian competition i think

Can you give the link to original source

2] F-35 can not load 6 aam internally, its not even planned, its notional, look up notional on google

Technically speaking then SDB II ,JSM and JSOW are also notional .Regardless there is no reason to not atleast give it 4 AAM since that the load out at the moment

3] sneaky SAAB made the requirement mach 1.1, had it been EADS they would have set the requirement mach 1.4
had it been L.M they would have set requirement mach 0.9, this is an obvious PR to go about

Another sneaky aspect is the load out of only 2 AAM for F-35 and no mentioned of CAP time

4] F-35 is cited as needing a bit of a/b to go supersonic, -hence its not supercruise capable,
every last source state F-35 can not achieve supercruise by definition, just give up already

Assuming that true , the no mentioned of CAP time for F-35 seem very dodgy , could be simply that F-35 would still be able to stay on the air longer than Gripen NG despite using afterburner since it is only internal fuel that we talking about here

4]
5] dont bother with T/W on supercruise, its T/D and you know it

There is lift induced drag as well, so higher weight mean more drag though not as much as parasitic drag or friction drag

Being none to fond of F-35, but this article is ridiculous.
Many of those whom work on SH, may find work at F-35 or F-15 prod line, etc.

Being a long time member , i thought you would have noiticed blackadam has a habit of posting awful article as long as those articles support his nationalist agenda.

F-35 combat radius is low compared to gripen

Pretty sure , it out range the gripen significantly even on internal fuel

subsonic acceleration is nice if you operate from a ski jump carrier
but apparently gripen subsonic acceleration is sufficient for operating from 600-800 meter improvised air fields

Not just that , subsonic acceleration is important for dogfight

guessing they are evenly squared on sensor fusion.

That chart is unbelievably biased

Not only that they repeat the same thing over and over again to turn it in Gripen Ng favor , but it also contain many false information.For example : the fact that raven aperture can be reposition is repeated 4 times under different criterias : “Repositioned” , “scan area” , “side looking ” , “very high FoV “. Then there is some nonsense criterias like ” IRST air to air enhanced ” and ” Embeded air to air IRST enhanced” , what the heck do they even mean ?. Moreover , where is the evidence that Skyward is superior to EOTS in that aspect ?. Then there are many others criterias that they got wrong such as ” active RF decoy ” where they listed F-35 as ” NO” but it actually does has one ( ALE-70). Or “user app” criterias where most people who follow F-35 program would know that Israrel for example has their own app for F-35I. Last but not least , whoever made the chart also very sneakily play down some of F-35 advantages such as bigger radar aperture ( 1600 T/R modules vs 1000 T/R modules ) , or more effective ECM ( because jamming power and burn through range scale proportionally with radar cross section )

I have never seen any actual evidence that the F-35 has an advantage in anything, for that matter..

How about RCS ? , combat radius ? , radar aperture ? , subsonic acceleration ? , sensor fusion ?

But Gripen can be operated by relatively untrained conscripts

This is utter nonsense, no fighter can be operated by untrained individual , unless they are willing to sacrifice a large number of them to crash in take off , landing , dogfight.

Let me say you seriously underestimate how it was difficult to track such targets until recently: they would had to be detected by the 2D surface scan radar (not the 3D AD one) as soon as the entered in the radar horizont

The only reason the fan beam (2D) radar was used for early warning instead of fire control radar was because its wide beam width will cover the volume at quicker rate , but that does not mean target have to be detected by search radar before FCR. Moreover, it was very hard to steer a high gain FCR at high rate because they need to have big aperture, however with the invention of electronic scanned array that has been solved.

To just recognize and track it you would have needed several radar scans

Which is done very quick at short range with any ESA

begin CW illumination and wait until the missile you launched reach it to detonate charge

That is without ICWI , but with that technology , SPY-1 can provide mid course update

all of this in the heaviest clutter environment possible, as sea surface reflect radio waves

Sea surface reflect radar wave but they are relatively stationary , missiles moving quite fast so the Doppler shift will be very different

It would probably detected at such a distance, tracking would require some second and some other would be needed for the missile to be launched and reach the target

PRF setting at close engagement like that would be ridiculously high so i dont think it takes more than micro seconds to change from detection to tracking.Moreover, once missiles is launched the engagement already started.

But why do the F-35 fans always point to the LPI modes of the radar then? The F-22 has EA capability

Because fighters radar are very helpful against most targets.However, VLO targets in jamming condition is not one of them

and could have whatever capability the F-35 has with proper funding

With infinite money , you can do whatever you want. But obviously funding is limited, hence the reason F-22 doesnot even have IRST or HMD eventhough these are technically flexible

Dedicated IRST work in precise wavelength for maximum performance

Hmmm, take for example OLS-35, FSO work in 3-5 microns wavelength , exactly the same as EOTS ( ofcourse EOTS also have extra CCD and SWIR sensor)
Pirate , AAS-42 works in 8-10 microns wavelength , which is similar to DAS. So i dont see much different there either

They are also optimized for fast scanning

This doesnot make sense. There is no real reason why a “pure” IRST ( AAS-42 , OLS-35 , or FSO ..etc) should be able to scan faster than a “not pure” IRST like EOTS. In fact ,many “pure” IRST such as AAS-42 or Tiger eye or OLS-35 are scanning array , which mean they would definitely search the FoV at much slower rate compared to staring array like on DAS or EOTS.
Moreover, if some IRST actually scan faster than EOTS , then how much faster are they ? 1% ? 2 % or 10% ?.

The Advanced EOTS may approach the capabilities of a pure IRST, but probably not equate them. The regular EOTS is probably significantly inferior

IMHO there is literally zero evidence to support that assessment.I can easily say a pure IRST is significantly inferior to regular EOTS and there would be equal chance of my assessment to be correct

The F-35 can stay subsonic, but that gives the F-22 a better ability to escape if it flies in supersonic. I don’t think it would need to fly at mach 1.7 either. Launching in supersonic would also give its AIM-9Xs a better BVR range

You can’t really escape from something you can’t see.Moreover going faster generate more IR signature as well, not always a good thing

Sticking with reality is accepting the fact that the F-35 has cost 20 billion more than it should have, thus severly reducing the funding that could have been allocated to upgrading other aircraft, right?

May be it is , but that is not the question of the thread

Sensitivity translated in range and very low RCS tracking. source? Christian Venot, program head, 3AF conference, Oct 12th 2016, Le Haillan. Of course, you can believe me-or not- (i guess you won’t, but i was there, not you)

TBH , argument like this is rather pointless.If you dont have video or documents of the conference what the point ?. Imagine if someone here claim to come to Boeing conference and they said F-18 SH radar is better than Rafale radar, would that be a valid argument?. I would think not.

RBE2-AA is nearly a decade newer, it would be reasonable to assume the UMS T/R modules offer some improvements in sensitivity than those in the APG-79.

That sound fair, but would it enough to overwhelm the physical size though ?