Didn't read your wall of text. Don't care
Why not talk about
Since you like talking about the Gripen "NG"
Why don't you tell us all how many are in operational service.
Better yet, tell us how many "NG" are flying today and where. Also how is it that there are 4 of them and they were involved in exercises where ran through the scenario you described.
I'll give you some time so you can run back to google.
I'm looking forward to all the wonderful information you have to share about the "Gripen NG" and how its systems are so capable.
Not reading what i wrote just shows you to be the obvious troll here. What reason do i have to reply at all if you ignore it?
Then perhaps you should start taking some lessons on actually reading, as you clearly have issues understanding extremely basic concepts like more than one model being mentioned, "Gripen" as in current models and "Gripen NG" of which there is 2 prototypes, or 1 or 0 depending on how you count, there´s two planes flying, testing the gear for the NG.
So, amazingly, if i write "Gripen" i am talking about the current C/D model, NOT the NG, what a surprise! Or do i need to explain it simpler words and bigger letters?
And about "capable systems", USA is just bloody awful at getting things up and running.
Let´s use my standard example shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strix_mortar_round
"STRIX has been in service with the
Swedish and
Swiss Armies since 1994."
It´s basically the same as the US XM395, developed in 10 years for less money than it took USA to even get through its original viability study on whether USA should develop a round like this, and THAT came AFTER STRIX was already in active service here.
Funny thing, the "X" in the US round name? Means it´s still a prototype, even funnier, the current model of STRIX is even now still more capable, despite the last update being years ago.
So, 10 years, spending less than USA did just on deciding whether it wanted the same thing, while USA is now on 20 years of development(including some lawsuits and change of developer) and STILL haven´t been able to do better.
What´s in Gripen is just the result of continued development of the STRIL2000 communications and datalink system(i don´t remember what the name became when it went into service, they just had to make it something troublesome instead of just sticking with the simple style STRIL-50/60/90 that preceeded it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STRIL no info beyond STRIL-90 and that´s just mentioned.
Anyway, the STRIL-2k has as one of its "big things" that it can do networked stuff, you know the stuff that is supposed to be in the F-35 but doesn´t work at all?
Basic idea being that if ANY sensor has a target, ANY other unit connected to the system that has weapons in range can shoot. And it works. But it´s going to work a damned lot better once the Meteor is the standard missile.
And then, just because i´m sooo nice, let´s post some numbers i dragged together last year or something:
Rough cost per flighthour as estimated by Jane´s and other sources:
F-35 32000$(minimum figure, adjusted for future numbers advantages that may never happen and may be nothing but wishful thinking anyway),
F-22, 44000-64000$. There´s some claims that places the cost even higher, but i think those are based on including lifetime upgrade costs.
SAAB-39 Gripen 4700$(very nonoptimal, with larger numbers or even just a more active organisation, cut by 1/3 or more),
F-16 ~7000$, probably fairly accurate.
F/A-18 Hornet, ~10000$.
F/A-18 Super Hornet, 11000-24000$ depending on how much "leet" gear you stuff it with and operations style and conditions.
Rafale 16500$, probably realistic.
Typhoon 18000$.
F-15C/E, 30000/28000$, probably too high estimates, under optimal conditions they´re supposed to be able to come within 30% of Typhoon, which would be less than 24000$, so likely includes the basic lifetime fixes.
A-10 3000$, probably too low estimate, it can usually skip some maintenance under operational conditions simply because it´s so sturdy, still probably not above 5000-6000$ even under suboptimal conditions, so even when things go poorly, it´s still pretty much on the cheap side. Some statements places it at 12000$, but that is probably full lifetime costs including upgrades.
Now then, maintenance hours per flighthour:
F-22, 34-45 hours on ground per flighthour.
F-35, 9-30+ hours. 9 is what the C is supposed to be capable of under optimal conditions, but this is probably unrealistic at best and pure propaganda at worst, figures around 20-22 seems to apply for a more average situation. However, here comes the big kicker, these hours are based on having SEVENTEEN qualified technicians AND an unstated number(probably 6) of semiskilled assistants working on EACH plane. >30 hours is for when conditions mess with the F-35s RAM, because while cheaper than the RAM of the F-22, it´s also inferior and can be just as troublesome to work with.
F-16, 19-20 hours. Can be cut a fair amount simply by assigning more technicians and people to assist.
Typhoon, 9-15 hours. Can definitely be cut a bit further.
F/A-18 Super Hornet, 15 hours? Uncertain figure, may not include engine maintenance.
Gripen, 9 hours, but this is extremely nonoptimized with only TWO technicians assigned and no assistants. When flown over Libya, this number was sometimes pushed down towards a tiny 1-2 hours, just by having more technicians and some mostly unskilled assistants available. I also have a statement that specifies that it normally needs 12 MANhours of maintenance per flighthour. (compare that to the lowest claims of 207 and the more realistic 480 for the F-35)
A-10, 6-7 hours. If you don´t mind the wear and tear, this can be reduced a lot. It has flown for week+ times under wartime conditions with a mere 1:1 flighthour to maintenance hours ratio. Longterm wear is much increased by doing so but it can probably do a 1:2 or at least 1:3 ratio for as long as wanted if they try.
Rafale, 8 hours. This is a partially optimised number, but still realistic for wartime condition operations. Expect they could cut it down to maybe 5-6 hours if they tried seriously.
B-2, 124 hours.
Mirage-2000, 6-10 hours or 10.5 manhours per flighthour.
If you absolutely must fansquee about a modern plane, can´t you at least choose something that WORKS? I mean the F-22 is at least not a joke in process like the F-35.