Does it matter to neutral countries whether it can supercruise with a heavy A2G load if they have little or no interest in attacking anyone?

No one can supercruise with a heavy A/G load.

No clever high lift devices apart from canards are needed to take off in 500/600 meters or whatever they will achieve.
Landing in 600 meters is the tricky bit.

It has.
Additional weight needs to be lifted, lift = drag.
And as already mentioned, Gripen E has increased wing area, plus increased length. It’s a larger, draggier aircraft overall.

I also got the impression that the new fuselage is fatter. Apart from the new wing roots.

FBW seems to have no undertanding of this subject at hand.

E has 20% more punch than the C/D model.

Also he/she has no understanding of the wingloading affecting the aerodynamics/handling etc.

Case closed.

Post of the thread :applause:

Saab doesn’t mention supercruise capability on their website. Doesn’t say much as Gripen E only went supersonic a short while ago. But supercruise is by no means a given. Certainly not with a serious load. Gripen would really benefit from an F414 EPE.
Supercruise wasn’t a requirement afaik. The main idea behind the Gripen E was increased range, at least initially. More new stuff was added over time.

Yeah I got that now, thanks. :very_drunk:

URF cost of the last few lots has always been expressed as Flight Vehicle + Engine + Contractor Fees. This was true of Lot-10 and is also true of Lot-11. So in sum, collective sum (URF) paid to LM and P&W towards the F-35 (A).

Thanks for clarifying.
Reason for my confusion is I thought APUC equals flyaway price, and APUC is also about 89 million, but in 2012 BY dollars, and without engine. Now the numbers make much more sense. :eagerness:

I recollect that around 2010 the F-5 replacement programme was launched and that some time later Boeing withdrew from the competition. Unless I am mistaken there was a problem with the Superhornet wingspan exceeding the maximum that could be accomodated in bunkers dug into hillsides. What has changed? Would the cost of enlarging those bunkers be added to any quote from Boeing when evaluating Superhornet?

Nothing has changed, the larger aircraft would require enlargement of the caverns (not sure about the F-35 actually). Surely the cost would be added. There’s not really another option.

Looking at CPFH, it seems a big jump from F-5 CPFH (I guess under $5,000) to at least double that (if not triple or more) for all the types offered except Gripen E. I do not know how many hours a year Swiss F-5’s were flown on missions that did not warrant the capability of the Hornets but having to fly air patrols at a CPFH increased by 100% or 150% or 200% compared to F-5 (or possibly even more) seems a massive waste of money to me if it can be avoided. Of the companies invited to quote for supplying fighters only SAAB can offer a product that might not cost several times more to fly each hour than F-5.

Since this is an F-18 replacement, you need to compare with F-18 cost.
F-5s don’t fly real missions anymore, they are used as training aircraft, sparring partners, aggressors to conserve Hornet airframe hours.

Swiss F-5s have pretty low airframe hours. I can’t remember the exact number, but it was something around 3000 hours I think… Old age and number of take-offs/landings are probably of more concern. Plus of course short transit times and hard use in many training fights. Switzerland is not the US where you need to fly 30min to reach training air spaces or fly 10 hour missions over sand without anything happening. Several retired airframes had cracks despite the rel. low hours.

one MiG-23MS was released for $ 3.6-6.6 million. (depending on the degree of “friendly location” to the buyer country).

The above statement illustrates why a comparison is difficult. What version of MiG-23 are we talking about? MiG-23MS was an export monkey model. What “customer” are we talking about, i.e. level of friendliness.
Has the MiG-23 in a non-monkey-model version ever been sold to a non-puppet state? Prices among socialist brother states are pretty meaningless, as are rip-off sales to arab countries.

Whereas in the west, GD/LM probably charged the full amount to every customer.

So, the outstanding question of how the JAGM is to be internally carried in the F-35 is put to paper, it will use the SDB’s BRU-61 rack. That should give it some good CAS flexibility. Imagine 2xSDB1, 2xSDB2, and 4xJAGM-F internal for CAS.

Well that give some nice loadout options. Up to 16 JAGM externally. Possibly even 32 when mounted under a BRU-55/57. Compare that to the usual 2 Mavericks from today.

Let me guess.. I thought EODAS was already a magic pixie dust? All this advertisements for a poor stuff (next one will have 5 times the resolution…) And BEFORE it is developed, it already has 5x the reliability? Awesome…

5 times the resolution isn’t all that much though considering how much time has passed since EODAS was born. F.e., if EODAS resolution today is 640*640 px, that’s 409 600 square px. 5 times that is 2 048 000 sq. px or 1431*1431 px.