Your point is completely irrelevant. You may add your route factor or consider that 500 km to include all zig zags or take whatever other number you want or present a more complicated scenario. It is just to have some benchmark to compare fairly.
YIMBY, presenting scenarios is a waste of time. As you have clearly demonstrated you want to nit pick every minute detail without understanding the context for any of it.
Anyway, your wavering reveals that you know more than you want to tell, i.e. we can guess (take proven?) that F-35 will be the last whatever scenario.
So the order to arrive in the battle place will be
1. Eurofighter Typhoon
2. Dassault Rafale
3. Saab Gripen NG (to be proven)
Boeing F-18 SuperHornet
5. Lockheed F-35
You certainly can tell how long F-35 loses at the start while booting up the supercomputers? It is irrelevant for planned offensive missions but crucial for unplanned defensive missions.
YIMBY, I haven’t waivered but I also won’t engage in a pointless discussion where you have not provided a single source to verify any of your claims. As usual, discussing this with you is a waste of time because all your claims are unverifiable.
Beyond and even close to 300 nm it can only shoot down a 747, not any fighter. A fast fighter will be safe at about 200 nm, probably closer.
Keep in mind that the Russian are not stupid. Even though S-500 may be an independent system, the air defense will use all available data and integrate them to get a full picture of the airspace.
And again YIMBY that is not what you asked. You wanted to know what threat systems were present or evolving that would present issues in the 2040 timeframe. I provided one but again you have now placed it within a scenario of where it will sit and how it will engage a threat without any context. You have also decided that a 747 target can be engaged while a fighter sized target cannot be at specific ranges without defining how and where those aircraft will fly, altitude, speed, direction…
Developing stealth fighters obliges the adversary to invest heavily on the detection technology instead of more lethal weapons. Hence they would be useful even if they are useless.
And what evidence do you have to support your claim that nations have invested more heavily in detection technology and more lethal weapons?
Where did I claim it to be better?
Your right you didn’t. All you claimed was that they were mostly American when they clearly aren’t.
Are you claiming that all EW is completely useless? Why then are US and Europe developing those, even if they have stealth and all that?
Of course, no EW can compensate too low speed, if that is the limitation.
YIMBY, in previous discussions I have already provided you with the kill chain, Find Fix Track Target Engage Assess (F2T2EA). Look it up. There are plenty of references to this such as the following, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_chain
The point of Stealth is to prevent being identified at the Find Fix stages of the kill chain or minimise the ability to Track and Target. If that fails then EW is one method used to defect the kill chain either before engage or during that stage. That is why Stealth aircraft continue to be equipped with EW systems, in case the adversary is able to break though the F2T2 barrier. No stealth aircraft is invisble, they just significantly reduce the F2T2 ranges. The difference is that EW systems on a stealth aircraft are generally more effective as they require less power to hide a lower RCS target against the background.
What does low speed have to do with anything…?
I have seen very different numbers quoted, but if those refer to real mission profiles with your zig zag factors, let us take them.
YIMBY, the range profile was listed in the quote, did you even read it?
The range is not something that appears at the end, but it is a design requirement. The American fighters tend to have longer ranges than European, evidently for different mission profiles. Particularly the Pacific theatre requires very long ranges. In Europe, the main task of the fighters is to keep enemy bombers out of own airspace, so the required ranges are much less.
Sweden has certainly evaluated what range they need for their planes.
What does any of this have to do with the our discussion?
I do not know why Finnish requirements would be much different, given the dimensions of the country, but it is up to you to present a mission that requires longer ranges than Gripen NG will do.
Really, so it is my responsibility to justify what requirements Finland is setting for their HX competition, very nice of you to place that trust and faith in me…
YIMBY, range is not just about flying in a straight line somewhere and coming back. The longer the range of the aircraft translates to more time in the battlespace compared to the time it has to spend flying back and forth to its base to refuel.
For example if we compare the time on station of fighters in the HX competition flying a CAP 200nm from a Finnish base. This is almost certainly a mission type that Finland is interested in, as would Sweden or Spain and Taiwan or any Air Force with a mission to defend their airspace.
Almost certainly the fighters will the larger fuel load, which generally signifies a longer range, would be able to spend longer on station than fighters will a smaller fuel load. How much that is would depend on the specific aircraft, their fuel load, their fuel burn rate, their aerodynamic drag, their weight etc. Finland will have asked each of the HX vendors to provide some stats on probably a couple of specific profiles of their aircraft at 150nm and 200nm and maybe 250nm from a Finnish base and state how long will they last on station before they have to return to base to refuel.
The range does not come free. The huge tank of F-35 adds weight and drag which reduce the payload and performance, like maximum speed, maximum altitude, maneuverability and runway performance, the last being quite crucial.
YIMBY, the F-35 fuel load is all internal. Yes that adds weight to the airframe but it also reduces aerodynamic drag as the aircraft profile is nearly as slim as the other aircraft in the competition while not having to carry external fuel tanks which provide significantly more drag.
For reference the internal fuel loads are the following, (values all from Wiki)
F-35 – 18,000 lbs
SH – 14,700 lbs
Rafale – 10300 lbs
Eurofighter – 11000 lbs
Gripen E – 7500 lbs
The four candidates that have lower internal fuel loads all require external fuel tanks to reach their longest ranges.
And no other fighter has seen development? Like Gripen?
Have the Eurofighter, Rafale or SH had an engine thrust upgrade over their current operational life times? Has the Gripen E Thrust to weight ratio improved over the Gripen C? The answer to those questions is no. While the options are available they have not been taken up by the operating nations. Compared to that we know the F-35 is being funded for engine improvements. We know a brand new engine program is being worked on, the AETP, where the engine is being specifically sized for the F-35, and promises both increased thrust and reduced fuel burn.
Where on earth do they need to strike? Madrid, Manchester or Warsaw? London, Rome, Budapest and Berlin would be reachable by Gripen.
Again YIMBY your lack of understanding of how fighters fly and fight is demonstrated by your inability to comprehend the situation. Fighters use more fuel when they have to fly supersonic to intercept an airborne target and in this instance the Gripen ran out of fuel while trying to intercept the airborne target and had to return to base. Don’t shoot me about this mate, it wasn’t me who designed the scenario, it was the Swiss Air Force.
As for how the Swiss evaluated the Gripen NG, it was found to be less capable than the F/A-18C in Swiss service.
They certainly have NDA's with the manufacturers, but they have to release a relevant document for the parliament to make the decisions and if it is released to politicians it will be leaked out.
Anyway, the most important numbers to be presented to the parliament will be
1) total acquisition cost (probably all around 10 M)
2) evaluation of yearly maintenance cost
3) quantity of the planes
I certainly hope the Finnish MOD will keep to their legal agreements. They have so far demonstrated and ran, so far as I can tell, a very professional competition.