Livefist has some interesting updates on F-16 block 70, Advanced S. Hornet proposals:
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/revealed-lockheed-martins-3-point-f-16-pitch-to-india.html

Transonic region- Straight wing
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250029[/ATTACH]

Swept wing will have lower overall wing wave drag- delay of drag rise:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250030[/ATTACH]

Supersonic Vs Subsonic drag:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250031[/ATTACH]

Note- While wing wave drag will be delayed and lower with a swept wing (and that is the largest contributor to wave drag), drag coefficient will still be much higher in the transonic. Beyond mach 1.2 Cd is relatively constant for most aircraft ( though drag will increase with speed)

Starting a separate thread on this. Let’s make the Canadian fighter replacement topics somewhat relevant to topic.

wrong
USAF required the F-22 to supercruise at M1.5, alright, but that never changed the definition of supercruise as such. It simply gave a requirement of speed to be fulfilled
?

Nope, came out the ATF requirements (Mach 1.4-1.5). For good reason. Depending on aircraft, transonic drag can still be high at Mach 1.2. The ATF was supposed to be able to fly combat portion of mission supercruising. Obviously that would be difficult if the aircraft could only maintain supercruise in straight and level.

supercruise is defined as sustained supersonic speed in level flight on dry thrust,

who use it as he see fit ?

Literally everyone who has been on here for the last 4-5 years knows your views on this. Does this need to be rehashed every 3 months?

No one but the marketing teams care whether one aircraft can “technically” fly at Mach .98, 1.01, or 1.2 on dry thrust. Because a simple 10 minute foray of reading on transonic region would understand why it’s worthless.

Rafale F2 standard had a 200 Mb/s databus called STI in 2003 (inside the EMTI between cards). I don’t know what is the datarate transfer of F3 (and evolutions). I also highly doubt, considering SAAB skills in calculators (finely working for Ariane rockets for example) that databus would be limiting.

France uses their own standard. Haven’t looked into it. The only aircraft I know that definitely employs “FireWire” equivalent is the F-35 connecting ICP, sensors. (400 mb/s as reported in 2004).

Ahem, what makes you think Gripen E will have the same data bus as the Gripen C?

I have tried to find info on which databus they will be using, so far I did not find anything very specific, other than statements about “ultra-fast data bus” and statements about “improved data bus structure” — this together with hints dropped by various Saab employees indicate that Gripen E will have state-of-the-art data bus structure.

Also the software will be significantly upgraded — after all they are shifting the first flight by 6 months to fully qualify the software first. That would not have been necessary had it been only a minor software upgrade.
.

Ahem, the system architecture was outline long before. The Gripen C added the new TMC in 2010, you obviously didn’t look very hard. Now look what is connected to the Tactical mission computers; see the 1553B databuses? Not state of the art, sorry:
http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=408
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250002[/ATTACH]

Again, twitter release: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Byg54m8IEAAJMXk.jpg

Considering that databus standard is used on nearly every aircraft flying (with the exception of the F-35, and possibly the F-22 as they were to be the first with new standard IEEE 1394 theoretical gb/s transfer rate), it is not a limiting factor as of now. However, the aircraft is expected to serve for 35-40 years.