4 anti ship missile load out is impressive,
will the new missile be able to strike ground targets ?

And don’t try to dodge the question. So does combat radius of Gripen NG includes 20 times mid air refueling ?

clearly, SAAB’s presentation is done at the worst altitude imaginable to show their product in the worst light possible,
in reality, 800 nm + 30 min on station is the minimum, but in practical terms,
gripen E is probably 1500 nm combat radius with a couple of hours on station, or better yet, i saw a presentation showing 4000 something, which no doubt is combat radius without drop tanks unless otherwise specified.
and no, the drop tanks arent actually needed, in fact it makes no difference at all,
hope that helps

not stating internal A2A means there may also be external missiles, it says nothing about external tanks,
stating internal fuel OTOH rules out external fuel

its coming from L.M, in their response to norwegian request for information on how far does F-35 go,
guessing binding means L.M is held accountable if they deviate from truth,
so this is the most honest spec that can be had from L.M

Do you expect me to remember it or what? It’s not my fault that all the numbers regd. the F-35, be it weight, range, combat radius or cost have been so damn inconsistent.. now multiply it by three for the A,B and C and you get what? utter chaos..

BTW, I have not seen the 760 nm figure anywhere.. for which version it is?

in L.M response to norwegian RFI, L.M stated 760 nm with external fuel iirc,
i think the range is just copied over from this RFI as the ultimate combat radius

apart from air intake and timeline, i could have bought into it

F-18 isnt even competitive with american 4th gen fighters, let alone anything more current,
i think its a waste of time and money trying to change a turd into anything else,
just add a few ****ty ole f-18 until USN can get their hand on a new fighter,
not f-35C but something new with actual performance