Gripen NG ticks more boxes of the defining 5th gen ™ attributes than F-35

Sorry to burst your bubble, ah who am I kidding, no I am not :)… but the only “defining” attribute of 5th Gen fighters is a VLO airframe which the Gripen is NOT.

Everything else (from maneuverability, to data fusion, to super-cruise) existed in some form or another in 4th gen airframes. Hell, the Gripen NG itself is just a reworked Gripen C/D with new avionics, a new engine, and more fuel.

The word “Generation” implies a clean break in capability and only the VLO airframe of the F-22/35 and soon to be PAK-FA and J-20/31 fit into that definition.

Less two-seaters than required means that the required number of planes would not have met the budget.

Eurofighter also left out R&D costs to integrate the required weapons.

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/600033.html

btw, The planes from the first half of the SK production run are LRIP F-35s (2018 and 2019 delivery schedule).

it was a KPP for next generation (5th) to have lower operational cost and better availability,
vs the fighter it was replacing,
just like the KPP of acceleration etc, which also failed

You are mixing up your terms (ie “KPP” and “goal”)

Sortie rate was a KPP while cost was not.

The one fault with the F-35 is the same as it would have been with the F-32 and the Yak 38 Forger. They all carry around the dead weight of uinemployed engines when not operating in the vertical lift regime so why bitch about the extra drag/wasted payload of drop tanks/CFTs? It was a flawed concept from the start.

The issue of carrying “dead” weight only applies to the F-35B and since it outclasses the Harrier in EVERY way, it’s a moot point.

The F-16 can manage 4 bombs, 4xAAM, targeting pod, and ~17,160lbs of fuel (internal plus central 300-gal drop tank plus 2xCFT). The ordnance is 1/3rd less but almost the same amount of fuel results in greater range due to considerably lower SFC.. That is, I would say, a tribute for the little F-16. Much less so for the F-35..

You are going to have to explain your logic there due to:
1. The internal fuel of an F-16 is 5920 lb http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f16/F-16Specifications.html
2. Add the 300 gal belly tank and two CFTs (450 gal ea) gets you a total of 14128 (at 6.84 lbs/gallon) not 17160.

Given what we have proven above, the F-16 with only 2 bombs and 22336 lbs of fuel goes virtually the same range (630nm at 35 gallons per mile) as an F-35A (613 at 29 gallons per mile) with 18k of fuel.

So you are saying that by removing 8200 lbs of fuel, still having the drag, and having to deal with that drag longer, will some how magically out-range the F-35???

Back-of-the-napkin math says that the F-16 with 4x 2k JDAMS will go only ~400nm (14128 gallons / 35.5 gal/mile) if it’s lucky.

Each document says something else.. But the official F-35 specsheet says >590nm.

You do realize that 613 is greater than 590, right?

Well, don’t blame me, these are LM’s own claims.

That’s the defense everyone uses when they don’t want to use critical thinking skills. That kind of thinking has lead to a whole host of claims based on “airshow” config vs the F-35’s “Combat Loaded” config.

I disagree. You can still leave the CFTs on, remove EFTs and clear the pylons for more ordnance.

It all depends on the range. Out to ~300ish or so nm then the F-16 can carry four 2k bombs. Beyond that, nope. You will lose 8000+lbs of fuel by clearing those pylons for extra bombs. Just to put in perspective, that is more fuel than the F-16 has internally. You will be losing nearly half your total fuel load to mount the two extra bombs while still having to deal with the drag of those extra two bombs.

My point was the that the F-35 can hang up to SIX 2000lb bombs without losing an ounce of fuel. Will the be drag loss, sure, but since it started by out-ranging the F-16, then it just continues to do so by an even greater margin. Then there is the 6x2k load which no F-16 can ever do, regardless of range.

The latest range numbers for the F-35A are 2x2k JDAMs & AMRAAMs out to 613nm, not 584nm. In that config it is a lone, 9G, m1.6 VLO fighter.

The F-16 while loaded for any serious bomb load or range has none of those. Not only would the F-16 be slower, less maneuverable & less survivable, but would also require extensive escort, decoy, EW, and AWACS support for the same mission that the F-35 can do alone.

When ranges get lower the the F-35 can do things the F-16 can never do like carry 4x to 6x 2000lb bombs while not trading any of it’s fuel.

btw, The 800nm range for the F-16 is without details for a reason, that being so people can make assumptions to fit their agenda.

However, by looking at another LM document that actually has details, it makes a clear Apples-to-Apples comparison to a F-35 strike mission.

In case you need glasses, the F-16 carrying two 2k bombs, AIMs, targeting & nav pods, a belly tank, CFTs and two 600 gallon EFTs goes… wait for it…. 630nm. Oh yeah, that assumes dropping tanks when they are empty.

So, all this bickering is about a 2.7% range advantage while COMPLETELY ignoring all the disadvantages and extra costs involved in a 4th gen strike package vs a flight of F-35s.

In case you need a closer look at the F-16 config, here it is:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]232263[/ATTACH]

And just to rub some salt in the wound, the 613nm estimate assumes a 5% SDD buffer. Once SDD is done then adding that 5% back in gets you to, wait for it, 643nm.

When exactly will that “technology” stop emerging and become useful?

Technology never stops emerging. You have to decide what the threats are vs what your requirements are and what your budget is.

Or was this a sad attempt at implying the F-35 is not useful?

The question is does it work and if the answer is yes when and how much will it cost?
At the moment the answer is it doesn’t, ignoring that, the when is unknown as is the cost.
It does “work”, you just have a problem differentiating between “working” and IOC. I watched it fly last weekend and spoke to the pilots at Miramar and they are very impressed with it, even at Block 2A.

Would you buy a product that doesn’t work, has an ever extending timeframe for being made to work, in a downgraded state, and has an increasing price tag?
Every development program is exactly that, the F-35 is no different.

How many are flying right now? 100+

What exactly caused the engine fire? Fan blade rubbing caused by a specific set of High-G maneuvers

Are the nations signed up to this pile of expensive high tech non functioning product actually engaged in combat today? You don’t develop fighters for “today’s” combat, but for “tomorrow’s”

Could many of them be in need of new aircraft to perform those missions? Nope

How effective would this product be in those missions? Very, as Block 2B is coming online and will be the basis of USMC and USAF IOC