Why does this plane sucks so much, /k/ ? I mean it's a complete

>>33226449
Nah, the Rafale sucks too

>>33226449

It looks nice though and it's look pretty smexy in swedo camos. On another note, it has all these failings and it's still more useful than you, because you are a moaning bucket of steaming piss.

File: Gripen splat.jpg (41KB, 620x194px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 620x194px

>>33226449
>Rafale that only costs 15% more
Wat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition#Comparison_of_the_aircraft
>Rafale: $84.48 million
>Gripen NG: $48 million

Other than that, yeah. Just think of it as a modern Swedish version of the F-104 or MiG-21.

>Tejas
Tejas is a flaming pile of crap. At least the Gripen has matured past it's flaming pile of crap stage.

>Are swedes too fucking dumb to just buy F-16's ?
They kinda treat their defense industry as an economic stimulus program. Openly.

>>33226576
These figures are really bad and probably old. The latest figures for the Gripen flyaway cost are around at least 70 million, and every jet listed cost has grew almost the same (look up the costs of the latest F-16 deliveries). The only jet with figures accurate today are the Typhoon and the Rafale.
And most of all, flyaway costs literally means nothing. You don't build an air force by saying "ok we need 50 jets and that's going to be good", you set requirements like "okay we need to be able to have a 24h CAP on this border, and deliver x number of 500lbs laser guided bombs every day in a sustained sortie rate y miles away from the base. Then you take in account mission readiness %age, expected attrition rates, stuff like that to find out how much fighters you're going to need for your requirements.
The thing is, for a small country, a light fighter weaknesses in endurance and payload might not make that much of a difference. But when your air field is like 300 miles away from where your jets need to be, a small fighter is really not efficient anymore. For example if you take the CAP requirement, your Gripen with 2 IR missiles and 4 active radar missiles, might only have 1 hour of fuel to use loitering on the CAP orbit, whereas a bigger Rafale with larger fuel tanks might stay 2 hours carrying the same amount of weapons. So now you're going to need twice as much Gripen to do the job of the Rafale, and twice as much pilots, more fuel, more support personnel and equipment and everything, and the Rafale will end up being way cheaper for the job.
Same goes for the air to ground mission, except the difference is bigger since air to ground weapons are heavier and draggier.

As far as the Tejas goes, sure it's no 4,5th gen fighter, but it's a really good starting point for India's aerospace industry, and most of all, it is absolutely capable enough for the missions it is intended to do (replacing MiG-21 and taking on Pakistan's laughable air force).

>>33226449
>Can you literally give me one thing that is better on the Gripen than the Tejas ?
Manoeuvrability.
Also its narrowness allows it to land on roads.

Atleast it has a BVR missile

>Sweden
>neutral nation
>no need to bomb foreign so combat radius and payload don't matter a lot.
>only interceptor characteristics and maintenance matter and that's what the fighter is for.

>>33226710
French have no intention of ever doing the heavy lifting, so it suits them

>>33226719
Yeah you might think your jet does not need bombs, but let's see how your country is going to defend itself when you can't support ground forces or stop any armored attack on your troops.
Interception does not give air superiority. If you want to prevent your troops from getting attacked from the air you need to control it. And the only way to prevent your airfield from getting bombed and allow your jets to defend your airspace against an attack by a modern air force is to be in the air defending it. Otherwise you're putting all of your trust in an IADS that's going to be decapitated by the first day of the war.
There's no "defensive" air strategy or anything like that that would allow yourself to defend your land without needing the requirements of a regular air force. Just read about the battle of Al Khafji where air superiority and support was the only thing that could prevent US ground forces from being overrun by Iraqi armored divisions.
If you want to be a neutral country that is able of deterring an enemy from invading you or defend yourself when it happens you have the same requirements as any other air forces.
Of course things like the range you need on your ground support planes might depend on the scale of the theater, but Sweden is absolutely not a small country.
And as far as maintenance goes, that's not what dictate your needs, that's something you try to optimize. The Gripen's limited range and payload is probably not efficient for most countries.

>>33226719

Interdiction capability is as important as interception for defending your country's borders by conventional deterrence.

>>33226449
Its a decent non-stealth fighter that has a low operating cost.

Its essentially a modern day equivalent of the MiG-21 and Mirage III in the 1960s

>>33226449
>Built by a nation with a smaller population and economy than New York

They did fine

>>33226708
>allows it to land on roads
no wonder India didn't want it, kek

>>33227499

plenty of muslims in Sweden,they only need to strap them with bombs and a give them a one way ticket to front

File: rafale-v2-small.jpg (348KB, 1535x809px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1535x809px

>>33226486
You take that back

>>33226449
Still derriere damaged over the brazil deal, are we Jean?

>>33227548

That they did, however, a lot of plane was off the shelf.

Go back to bed Pierre. The big selling point is the low cost per flight hour desu, not the low purchase price. Makes it very suitable for smaller countries who don't want to blame too much of their GDP on their air force but still get flight hours for their pilots.

For that reason it'll be interesting to see how the Boeing T-X will turn out, it's built along with Saab, and Saab is good at cutting costs. God knows we need to save money on planes after the F35.

>>33227876
>The rafale in its natural envrionment, with full BVR loadout

>>33226449
Are you the same retard who makes all the threads, raging against the Gripen?
I've answered to some of the others, but here is a sum-up:

- Designed to be a light fighter, so compare it to other light fighters like the F-16. Comparing it to a Eurofighter twice its size is stupid.
- NG comes at about the same price as a brand new F-16V (latest model, most comparible. Look up the US latest price for new F-16's. And those haven't got nearly the upgrades that the V has...)
- Lowest operating cost of any western fighter by a huge margin
- Low maintence requirements (few personel, take off from roads etc.)
- Compared to the F-16V the NG has similar range and weapons available, but the NG sports the latest Meteor

Now the Gripen NG has better...
- RCS (about 0.1)
- IRST
- Sensor fusion
- Data link
- AoA (about 50 vs. the F-16V's 35 limit)
- Thrust to weight at max weight (0.7 vs. 0.625 for the F-16V)
- Low speed handling (due to canards and TW)

>>33228118
Yes, but you're still going to need more personnel and jets to do the same job. Just look at how country like Ethiopia manage to have a better air force than neighbours by having low number of high performance jets (Flanker in this case) rather than high number of low tech jets (like the F-5E Tiger II).
And you're retarded if you think the US needs to save money on planes after the F-35 : the F-35 is wayyyy more cost effective than every jet it is replacing (80 millions for a new F-16 sucks balls).

I'm shocked that /k/ doesn't cheer on the Gripen.

It's the little plane that can.

File: Gripen_pocket.jpg (36KB, 640x479px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x479px

>>33226449
Retarded.

>>33228166
Correct. These

File: geteducatedyouretard.jpg (69KB, 953x231px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 953x231px

>>33228166
>You should make sure you're not saying complete bullshit before posting, pic related showing that the Eurofighter is barely bigger than a Gripen and absolutely not twice its size.
>The F-16V is way more capable than the Gripen with superior weapons, sensors, payload, range, and you also get USAF-level training.
>Operating costs and maintenance requirements don't work in a vacuum, your Gripen easily ends up being more expensive than an F-16 for the same job if you're going to need a somewhat decent weapon capacity or range/loiter time.
>Meteor has inferior total range, ECCM/EW capabilities than an AIM-120D and won't be updated as frequently, if at all.
>Citation needed on the RCS, the Gripen is absolutely not shaped for LO. The F-117 has a RCS of about 0,5 and its shaping is ridiculous. RCS is 90% shaping.
>IRST is mostly a meme, it exists since the 60's and has never been more than a tool of limited use, and even if the Gripen IRST is better it barely makes a difference.
>Citation needed on the sensor fusion and datalink
>AoA doesn't matter until you get slow, and if there's a jet that doesn't have to worry about keeping its energy it is the F-16.
>Dogfights don't happen at max weight, and this is more a testament ot the Gripen poor payload more than anything.
>A good F-16 pilot won't get slow enough for this to matter in a dogfight

The F-16 has better range, endurance, weapons, one of the best AESA in the world, its pilots get the best fightet jet training in the world, it has a superior EW suite, and all of those are the most important things for current jets.

And yes, this is not my first Gripen post, but I'm tired of this retarded meme perpetuated by people who have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not saying the Gripen is a shit plane, it's still a 4,5th gen fighter and like any of them it is still incredibly effective as a weapon system, it's just the worst 4,5th gen fighter currently available in 95% of the cases.

Oh, and I don't want to imagine how quick a Gripen will lose energy in a fight with those big draggy delta wings that tend to require way too much AoA, especially since the Gripen absolutely isn't the kind of jet to have tons and tons of thrust, unlike the F-16.

>>33228235
Swedish. Gotta suck, or there will be a lot of existential crisis going around.

It might even pay off for some, if 4chan has managed to get on the Russian propaganda radar. Can't have people thinking there'd be any hope of making things to costly to be worth it for Russia if they decide to lean on northern Europe like they do on Ukraine.

>>33226449
It ultimately is not about capability. It's about which 4.5 Gen shitfighter is going to be the cheapest and simplest to maintain and operate. I mean, the IAF might as well be throwing stones from cessna 172s for all the good any of these export model fighters are going to do versus an airforce with a significant budget and native technical expertise.

>>33228408
Sweden is cool as a country, they just have the bad habit of memeing the shit out of their crappy planes and bribing foreign officials to sell them. Don't take a critic of anything related to Sweden to an attack on everything related to Sweden. You guys are good at shit memes but saadly not rational enough sometimes.

>>33227876
Ok ok, it looks fucking epic, id give it that.

>>33228441
You don't buy jets for the sake of owning them but to accomplish something, and this is the basis that you use to compare costs. The Gripen can totally end up being more expensive as jets like the F-15E or the Eurofighter to do the same job, which is what happens when you have to use the Gripen on the farthest edge of its incredibly short combat range.

>>33228337

Out of interest, what is the source on the AIM-120D having a superior range to the Meteor?

They're similar in size, but since the Meteor uses air as the oxidiser it should have much more fuel (as well as the potentially more efficient throttleable thrust).

>>33228408

But think about it. It's amazing a tiny country like Sweden is able to make a 4.5 generation fighter, period.

That makes it a member of a very small club.

>>33228542
This is just the current figure availables, I'm on my phone right now but I'll try to link to some of them when I get to a computer in a hour or so.
What you don't consider is the enormous drag penalty of the intakes on the Meteor. Sure, you can have more fuel and a higher sustained speed with the ramjet, but you're going to need to burn more fuel to have the same speed as the AIM-120D, and once you burned all of the fuel the Meteor is going to lose its energy incredibly fast, resulting in a shorter maximum range than the AIM-120D, since it can't just glide its way to the target. Of course the higher energy at medium ranges of the Meteor might make it more effective against a maneuvering enemy who detected the missile. However against the same target the AIM-120D might not be detected by IR/UV MWS, since it finished burning his fuel a long time ago. There's also the EW aspect. Which one of them is the hardest to jam or has the least chance of being detected once it turns on his terminal guidance radar ?
However, it is obvious that currently, the most effective air to air platform has to be stealthy as far as RCS goes and radar emissions, so it's going to need an AESA, and ideally supported by an AWACS, in the aim of detecting the enemy and launching missiles at BVR before being detected. Once again, the Meteor inlets are an issue, since they make carrying it internally impossible (at the moment). Which is why, like basically every recent exercise showed, I wouldn't bet on a 4,5th gen fighter carrying a Meteor against a F-22/35 carrying AIM-120D internally.

>>33228374
>I don't want to imagine how quick a Gripen will lose energy in a fight with those big draggy delta wings
You imagine wrong.

>>33226449
DESIGNED BY MORE THAN THREE GOVERNMENTS

That's why.

>>33228733
Meteor isn't about higher top speed or maximum range, friend. You fail to understand why a ramjet missile would be so effective.

AIM-120D's maxmimum range might be more, but its Pk at those ranges is going to be near zero.

Entire point of the Meteor is to be able to efficiently cruise, then throttle to maximum on pitbull, giving it a massive NEZ. Why the fuck you think it'd act like a normal rocket motor and burn at 100% staight off the pylon is beyond me.

>>33228877
Did the Gripen transcend the laws of physics and rules that generally apply to every other plane with delta wings ?

>>33228733

So basically what you're saying is you have no source because there has never been any maximum range listed for either of the missiles, so you're just trying to say a lot of jargon in the hopes it makes you look knowledgable and cover that you have no hard numbers.

>>33228910
Except it's not going to be able to cruise efficiently with the massively increased drag, which means it's not going to have enough fuel to be able to have comparable energy as a AIM-120D at short ranges, and once all of the fuel is gone it's going to fall out of the sky really quick.

>>33228968
I'm sure you have a source for that, because every single thing I've read disagrees with you completely.

>>33228957
Of course nobody has the real figures unless we fly the plane/design the missile/find some document giving some data like the guy who made the missile mod for DCS, but I don't need hard figures to guess what kind of behaviours each missile will have at different moments, and anyway that's the best guess we can make as civilians, since I doubt you know more than me.

>>33228982
I don't have a source yeah but this is basic physics and I'd like you to explain where I made a mistake.

>>33229012
Where you assume that the parasitic drag from intakes is greater than the efficiency of a properly throttled ramjet.

>>33229050
If that's the case and the Meteor is so efficient, then why is its maximum range inferior to the AIM-120D ? Wouldn't it be able of flying way farther by throttling as efficiently as possible ?

>>33229074
>then why is its maximum range inferior to the AIM-120D ?

It isn't.

>>33229085
Source ?

>>33229004

>Of course nobody has the real figures

So you know shit and are, as I just said, trying to throw down enough jargon and arrogant statements to try and come across as a self declared expert then.

You don't know the ranges. No-one does.

>>33229125

You're the one who made the claim. Show proof that the maximum ranges are different that aren't just vague classified "+" numbers then.

And while you're at it, stop talking in maximum only. Maximum range is not the most important number in a missile's capability.

>>33228927
>rules that generally apply to every other plane with delta wings ?
Source: you ass.
Also canard plans are a thing. The Gripen is an excellent plane from an aerodynamic point of view, as many delta, Mirage, Rafale, Typhoon... A good way to loose energy is to use vector thrust by instance.

>>33229165
>>33229178
I finally got on my computer, I'm going to start looking for some Meteor/AIM-120D data figures (if I don't get distracted and start watching those damns gripen crash videos again).

>>33229255
What do you know about aerospace engineering/combat aircrafts if you don't know how fast deltas tend to lose energy in a turn and require bigger AOA (which leads to a lot more drag with big delta wings) than other wings ?

>>33228166
Even the F-16 makes the Gripen seem puny.

>>33228166
>Now the Gripen NG has better...
>- Low speed handling (due to canards and TW)

Gripen.
Low speed handling.
topkek
Thanks Dassault for fixing its FCS I guess

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yVU_yYtEc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwEb5YNxBJw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iToQ2FykoI

File: AIM-120 envelope.gif (49KB, 490x390px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 490x390px

>>33229074
Absolute-maximum range like they show you in the brochure only applies at high altitude. At low altitude, higher air density leads to higher drag and thus lower range.

But in Meteor's case, its ducted nozzle achieves greater specific impulse in the higher-density air, offsetting the performance loss due to higher drag. So in practice, down where most engagements actually take place at low altitude, Meteor prevails by a good margin.

I couldn't find any conclusive data on the AMRAAM or Meteor, so I will stay on my position.

>>33229403
It's weird how in the 2nd and 3rd crash the pilots eject almost immediately, but in the first one the pilot still doesn't ejects after totally losing control and slamming into the ground.

>>33229556
The AMRAAM can at lieast climb and cruise it's way to the target where the air is thinner, but the Meteor is forced to stay down low.
I'm not an aerospace engineer, but are you implying that the Meteor gets more efficient in thicker air and that it would counteract the drag ?
It seems backward to me, and I'd like if you could go more in detail about that.

>>33226686
>So now you're going to need twice as much Gripen to do the job of the Rafale, and twice as much pilots, more fuel, more support personnel and equipment and everything, and the Rafale will end up being way cheaper for the job.

Except that with 100 Rafales if 100 fighters were shot down you lost 100% of yours, while with 200 Gripens if 100 fighters were shot down you lost 50%. Attrition math matters as well.

Gripen is the way to go if a small budget shall yield a respectable quantity of fighters. A long range is really only important for offensive missions, and those are of questionable utility in a high end air war now that area air defence SAMs are pretty much the same as the dominant air-to-air munitions.

Fighters on a 5 minute readiness can be at really high altitude and supersonic horizontal speed in less than ten minutes. Fully laden combat aircraft on offensive mission penetrate only half of an AEW's range in that time.

10 min = 1/6 of hour = 1/6 of about 1,000 kph ~ 170 km ~ 1/2 of AWACS radar range against strike fighter that carries external A/G munitions

Keeping many fighters on defensive CAP makes little sense nowadays.
A CAP flight around each AEW makes sense, but other than that you should let the intruders first taste your air defences, then when the intruders are outside of their AEW coverage you engage them with interceptors that either lob active radar homing missiles at long range or sneak at them with IRST. Either way they learn the intruders' location and movement vector because datalinks feed them info from ground-based radars and AEW.

Gripen is fine for this, and good enough for anti-ship strikes and anti-invasion force strikes as well.
A strike package capability against SA-1x and SA-2x IADS are terribly and questionably expensive. Stationary targets could more cheaply be engaged by a saturation attack wave of container-launched quasi ballistic missiles à la Iskander.

File: Gripencontrolsurfaces1.jpg (141KB, 1100x830px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1100x830px

>>33228374
It *can* shed energy extremely quickly, true, but that's an advantage. It's a very agile plane, you should check out some of the footage of it actually in flight.

>>33226449
It's still better than the F-35.

>>33228733
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35-347416/

File: 18592d8b0ce21502b136450bcf489e247478eec3b30f95c465b5d97950d3237c.png (92KB, 237x287px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 237x287px

>Gripen
>IKEA F-16 that they put the wings on backwards

>>33229403

shit happens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8

>>33229626
>The AMRAAM can at lieast climb and cruise it's way to the target where the air is thinner
WIth the AIM-120D, yes, but not in HOJ or any other shot where range data is missing. Missile still needs to know when to dive back down on the target.
>Meteor is forced to stay down low.
No, it isn't. At altitude it behaves like a conventional rocket, though the additional mass of the inlets does impact performance somewhat.
>I'm not an aerospace engineer, but are you implying that the Meteor gets more efficient in thicker air and that it would counteract the drag ?
Well, to a degree. It's still going to have more range at high altitude than at low altitude, but at low altitude it blows pure-rocket missiles out of the water.
>It seems backward to me, and I'd like if you could go more in detail about that.
Well with a pure rocket, all of your thrust comes from propellant expanding and ejecting out of the nozzle directly. This rocket exhaust expels at very high velocity, but there's not much reaction mass to work with (only the mass of the propellant itself).
With an air-augmented rocket, like Meteor has, there is an inlet which scoops up ambient airmass, mixes it with the hot, high-velocity rocket exhaust, and ejects it out the back as well (at somewhat less velocity). This is a more efficient use of the energy stored in the propellant, and the higher the air density, the more reaction mass there is available to augment this effect.

Sometimes oxygen in the air is also used as a reactant too, adding more energy and heat to the exhaust somewhat like a ramjet or afterburner, but I'm not certain if this is an intended function of the Meteor's engine.

>>33229576
The pilot was considered at fault first time this sort of bobbling happened. Then it happened again. And again.
They later found they had a real problem with the FCS which could not handle low speeds at all, locking commands in weird positions.
Saab then asked the frogs for hints and a part of the Gripen's FCS was reworked after the Mirage 2000's FCS.

The point of my previous post being canards does not mean automatic better low speed handling. FCS is at the forefront of this, whatever aerodynamic formula is used. And Gripen's FCS weren't particularly well born. One can only fear what will happen with the NG.

But hey, what do I know ? Buzzwords on /k/are so powerful they're borderline meme magic anyway. At least in the memer's minds.

>>33234345
>The pilot was considered at fault first time this sort of bobbling happened.
>Then it happened again.
With the same pilot, kek
>Saab then asked the frogs for hints and a part of the Gripen's FCS was reworked after the Mirage 2000's FCS.
Proofs pls
I know they hired Americans to address the problem but I've never heard anything about Dassault getting involved.
>The point of my previous post being canards does not mean automatic better low speed handling.
That depends what you mean by handling. If you mean control response, you're right, but canards do offer high-lift configurations that are otherwise impossible with a tailless delta. Tailless deltas like the Mirage or F-102 can't crow their elevons down as flaps for low-speed, high-lift flight, but if you put a canard on to counteract the pitching moment you suddenly can get away with it and achieve significantly lower speeds (not to imply that canards are any better at this than conventional tails are, however).

>>33236459
>Tailless deltas like the Mirage or F-102 can't crow their elevons down as flaps for low-speed
The Mirage 2000 doesn't crow its elevons down for low speed manoeuvers yes. However its low speed handling seems fairly good thanks to its leading edge slats doing all the work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCzy_BI9QnU

The Rafale despite being a delta canard doesn't crow its elevons for low speed either, however it does make intense use of its leading edge slats too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6ccJPX6GcY

Where you're absolutely right is when considering the need for reducing speed in a straight flight. The Rafale is arguably the only fighter able to achieve a short landing after an immelman. Without a dedicated air brake, the solution to achieve this consists into having canards pitch up and elevons pitch down. That's the only way elevons are used to reduce speed. Rest of the time, the huge amount of drag generated by the delta wing is more than enough.
https://youtu.be/HQdEr0TZe9U?t=515

Conclusion, leading edge slats play a way bigger role in low speed, including approach speed, than elevons, in a delta wing design, canards or not.

Which means elevons crowing isn't a key point to achieve a good low speed handling for a delta wing fighter jet either. Obviously canards will play a role, but it will have more to do with helping the boundary layer on wings to stay in place to still generate lift at a higher AoA, than generating lift by themselves.

As for the Gripen, it is correct US company Calspan helped Saab to redesign the FCS with the use of a modified T-33 testbed. However I was personally told by several old french engineers Dassault played a little part on it too. Can't find anything about it online. Feel free to call bullshit. Maybe it is.
However you won't find a lot of stuff about Northrop Grumman using the swept wings design of the Mirage G to improve the F-14 either, and this nevertheless happened.
So... The plot thickens.

File: Rafale M in the spaghetti.jpg (376KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1920x1080px

>>33237132
>However its low speed handling seems fairly good thanks to its leading edge slats doing all the work.
Are you suggesting the Gripen doesn't have functional slats?
>The Rafale despite being a delta canard doesn't crow its elevons for low speed either
Yes it does. Pic related.
>The Rafale is arguably the only fighter able to achieve a short landing after an immelman.
I suspect the Viggen would be pretty handy at that. Reverse thrust and all.
>Conclusion, leading edge slats play a way bigger role in low speed, including approach speed, than elevons
No, because you can't land a jet at 40 degrees AoA. Slats only enable you to reach higher AoA without stalling, TE flaps let you actually increase lift without increasing AoA.
>Which means elevons crowing isn't a key point to achieve a good low speed handling for a delta wing fighter jet either.
It's literally like the difference between landing with and without flaps on a conventionally-configured fighter. Now, many deltas have low-enough wing loading to do without it fine, but you can't pretend it doesn't make a significant difference.
>but it will have more to do with helping the boundary layer on wings to stay in place to still generate lift at a higher AoA, than generating lift by themselves.
Aaaaand provide another source of pitch control, allowing the main wing to operate more efficiently without being constrained by pitching moment.
>than generating lift by themselves.
Agreed, lift DIRECTLY contributed by canards is insignificant.

File: gripen.webm (3MB, 1098x618px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1098x618px

I have no autism to contribute with but this webm is nice

File: JAS.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>33237977

File: gripen-flanker_avionics.jpg (203KB, 789x845px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 789x845px

>>33228337
Ok, I'll begin with the sources you requested along with correcting, and then write a more general answer afterwards.

- RCS source: Always depends on what angle, and full data sets are military secrets. What most militaries do is to give a 'public' RCS that is likely a plane's RCS from an optmal angle The public figure for the Gripen C/D is 0.1, the NG's RCS will be lower than that(1). For an F-16C the public figure is 1.2 (and no, the F-117 is not 0.5, it's 0.003!) (2)
(1) http://aviationweek.com/awin/new-gripen-aims-low-cost-high-capability
(2) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

- "IRST is a meme": The US has been strapping IRST-pods on fighters since '11. The Super Hornet is getting new ones by '18. IRST is becomming more and more important because of many things: better and better range, ignores stealth, unjamable, does not give you away - unlike radar. There's literally too many sources popping up on s google search that I'll bother pasting them, but here's an article
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NavairNewsStory&id=5551

- Sensor fusion
http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-for-brazil/pdf-gripen-ng/gripen-ng-brochure.pdf

- Datalink: The Gripen has diractional data link, and shares capabilities, only matched by the F-35!
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/saabs-gripen-ng-fighter-has-an-awesome-way-to-make-its-1743963539

>>33228337
>>33238381
Now for a more general answer.

Yes, the range on internal fuel of the F-16V is grater than the NG - but note that the NG has better range than that of a F-16C/D. All can carry more fuel externally.
Now this, along with thepayload (7.700kg for the F-16, 7.200kg for the NG) are valid critique points on the Gripen NG

BUT claiming that the Gripen suck on basis of this is ignorant on the brink of stupid. As allready stated it outperforms the V in WVR. You said AoA wouldn't matter because quote "A good F-16 pilot won't get slow enough for this to matter in a dogfight". With similar TW and a lower wind loading than the F-16 the Gripen would also out-turn an F-16 at speeds (around 60lb/ft^2 vs. 88lb/ft^2).

Then there's BVR-combat and here there's no contest. They both sport the latest AESAs with similar capabilities but with a RCS about a tenth of the F-16, the NG would detect the V at double the distance. As many other in this thread stated it fires the Meteor which acording to available data has better range and lethality - especially at long ranges. Even you you're still sceptical, well, the NG also fires the AMRAAM series that the F-16V uses...
Turning off the radar to avoid detection would also spell disaster for the F-16 since the NG is the only one of the two with an IRST.
In all cases it would be a slaughter for F-16Vs going up against Gripen NGs - and then we aren't even talking about the low maintanence cost of the Gripens.

How can you claim you're quote "tired of this retarded meme perpetuated by people who have no idea what they're talking about" at this point? It clealy trumps the most comparible fighter that costs the roughly the same to buy.