The A-12 program was a mess.. you should read “The $5 billion misunderstang”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1557507775/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/184-8488586-9496112

an interesting read explaining how that, otherwise interesting idea ended up as a failed project… it has nothing to do with Clinton… it was going down long before he took office.

yes, but in 1967 you could disperse your fighters around the place… unseen.

today, in a hypothetical russia/sweden scenario, you can be sure that prior to any invasion, the russians would pinpoint most if not all locations where the gripens can operate from (thanks to satellite imagery), and hit them with CMs before even entering the fight. from there on, methodically cover the airspace with the AWACS cover to detect any places the gripens manage to take off and that may have been missed. As said, swedish air space is pretty much open to the east with no terrain to speak of which would allow you to hide from AWACS surveillance. Another advantage would be the possibility for the russians to use long range assets like the flanker family fighters, which would be able to operate even without air-air refueling for long periods of time (something that the arab air forces armed with migs couldn’t do in 1967) making any take off complicated for the gripens, as they could be engaged almost immediately and before being able to gain a good position for combat.

I think most geologists would disagree that Sweden is flat.

The only flat surface is the baltic sea, we have smaller ski resorts in the capitol and to the east and north of it. (still within the area code of the capitol)

But it is a defensive system from the beginning, that is true. By having shorter distance to the airfields, quicker turnarounds (high sortie rate) and little need for service (that happens to be fast) a small airforce can mach a larger one over time.

Er, try to overfly it (I did), it’s almost exclusively forests on flat ground, there are some low hills, but basically, you have to go pretty far away from sea to start seeing mountains (along the norwegian border, more or less). As for matching a large air force, I still have to see ONE that managed that (israeli-arab wars don’t count, as arab air forces didn’t act as one, obviously 😉 )

To this argument i always say, that the F-35, nor its opponents will work in a bubble. The F-35 is a mere weapons system, and the battles of the future will be between systems and complex integrated networks all linked up, therefore JOUSTING like scenarios are not true indicators of overall capability that a weapons system brings to the table. But i agree, the F-35 is designed as a strike oriented fighter (Multi role) that is to operate along side the F-22, and LRB/NGB in highly IADS.

the fact is: the US don’t need the F-35 for A2A… it will be a bombtruck with some limited A2A capability (self defence eventually) but other countries who are to equp themselves with the F-35 as exclusive fighter (no specific A2A fighter to do that job) will have to use it as such…

go explain to netherlands officials that their new fighter has to be used in a huge network made of AWACS, air superiority dedicated fighters, electronic warfare aircraft, etc… same for the norwegian politicians or any other nation that won’t have anything else in terms of “fighters” to count on

You say it’s a force multiplier, but from that description, it is a most network-dependant aircraft ever: basically, when in perfectly known conditions, it may fit the bill (albeit, not the original one, but the tempered down one), but when being on its own as in most air forces it is supposed to equip, it is anything but an advantage

gripen was tailored for swedish needs, low cost scattered fighters in good numbers over a large flat territory where you can see your enemy from far away…

it is a deterrent aimed to say “don’t mess with us, it would cost you too much”, but definitely not something that would stop a full scale invasion coming from russia, if russians decided to go that way…

With a flat land from the sea all across Sweden, any fighter taking off would be imediately picked up by russian awacs, allowing fast intercept and location of its base. On the other hand, fighters like the Su-27 family can operate from safe distances, and stay over swedish territory for a long period of time. A gripen taking off would become a target very rapidly in such circumstances (not to speak of its base which would be pinpointed as well and most certainly heavily bombed to prevent other operations)

Who says in the future the will be a canopy? Maybe sensors get good enough that you can display a TRON like represination of the world? (Even detailed enough to land with.)

you can always paint TRON-like representation of the world, even today, but to fly and fight within it, you have to be in a movie… 😉

today, and for a long time to come still, either you get your pilot out of the thingy (drone) or you have a good canopy with good visibility (or you go 70 years back in time for a “Mig-15 – like ” visibility for the pilot, just like with the F-35)

CUDA solutions are very similar to the ones that we find in the ASTER family.

the major difference is that the CUDA can pass half an inch from your aircraft… and you’ll be completely unaware that it passed by harmlessly

Aster, or any other modern (and even not so modern) missile will have a proximity fuse which will detonate and damage or destroy your aircraft even if it doesn’t make physical contact with it…

And considering that it’s much easier to have a “near hit” rather than a “direct hit”, proportionally your pk will be the same (lower) if your only destruction capability passes by a direct hit