@Urban, “new weapon ejectionlaunch pods” where did you hear or see anything about this? New pylons for sure but pods?

New under fuselage pylons to be developed and 214 pylons ordered for Gripen E. Would be interesting to see the amount of LO adaptation of these..

http://www.exelisinc.com/News/PressReleases/Pages/Exelis-to-develop-and-supply-pneumatic-missile-eject-launchers-for-Saab-Aeronautics.aspx

Here is an “economic” approach to MMI, I expect the marginal value of additional information shown to the pilot to be declining but the cost/complexity of providing that info is increasing probably exponentially.

How much is sensor fusion is required to for almost full efficiency? When is it better to provide more training or change of doctrine instead? As an example the Gripen philosophy is to leave more decisions for the pilot rather than to the ground and with less info displayed but with a high degree of multi ship sensor fusion (I do NOT imply that this is better, just that it is a different approach).

What real MMI benefits are really out of range for the 4,5 Gens? Does the total integration of F35 increase the complexity so much that the future upgrades will suffer (in performance or financially?)

@MSphere, several things combined here.
I’ve read about the planned reduction of flying time in Norway with the introduction of F35, searched but could find the source again. Any help would be appreciated.

My post was intended for double meaning, hopefully the improved MMI will really allow for lower costs and higher performance but best way to lower operation cost is to cancel all flying!!! Perhaps this will be the move to prove the cost efficiency of the F35..:rolleyes:

@ H&H Agreed, but artic sea location is true i Luleå too.

@Vnomad, gripen has ZERO need for a dragchute and has been operating in the artic for many years..
Even if the F35s dragchute would have alimited drag, does anyone here with good aerodynamic know how dare to make an estimate of the added drag index?