Well, that’s a problem, Mr X, since the F-35 has a very limited jamming system comprising X-band effective only in the forward 120 deg. sector at best, and an ill-defined active radar expendable decoy – so it does not meet your own criterion.

Which competitor provides a better jamming solution?

Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that its sensors are any better than anything else’s;

😀

indeed, the EOTS is limited in field of regard and has no multi-spectral capability.

FoR’s an issue only for operations at relatively low altitudes. For most other missions, it’ll be adequate.

Which fighter IRST offers multi-spectral capability?

Ah you see what you are all forgetting is “Comrade JSR” here can just look at any picture or video of an aircraft and instantly know its performance and then rate it behind his beloved Mig-29/35 and Su27(or derivative – unless it is made by China whereupon it must be an under-performing primitive pile of junk or a fake actually made by Russia).

Bah, small fry stuff. He can look at an aircraft’s video and tell you about the engine’s performance. Irrefutable proof of a maestro at work.

Lukos, I don’t know who you are to chose which hypothesis should fit, but I’m going to write 2 things and only 2 which should make you think a bit more.

1- In South Korea, Rafale was proposed with 3 drop tanks and 2 cruise missiles. But there, this wasn’t enough (no tanker), thus, they also proposed CFTs.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rafale-fighter/images/rafale_9.jpg
I would tend to believe that if professionals (Korean militaries and Dassault) wanted those CFT IN ADDITION TO THE THREE DROP TANKS, it means that contrary to what you claim, those in the know have an idea of what to do with so much fuel.

Dassault may have proposed it and its useful thing for the marketing team, but I strongly doubt that the ROKAF had any such requirement. What mission could possibly require 14000L of fuel over and above the 500km range of the ALCM?

Actually come to think of it, you could strike the same target without CFTs by simple employing a longer ranged cruise missile. The JASSM-ER for example, would reduce the aircraft’s required flight range by about 1000 km.

(more to this : on the Rafale, CFT would be used on already heavy configurations, since there’s no way it would be a win-win solution -not dropable, too costly on performance-)

On the contrary, I’ve wondered why the AdlA/MN didn’t adopt CFTs. While operating in sanitized airspace like Afghanistan or Syria (after the first week), CFTs would certainly be more economical since the aircraft are probably dragging (expensive) empty EFTs back to base, rather jettisoning them. My guess would be that long endurance sorties are a rarity making CFT acquisition more of a hassle than its worth.

It’ll be amazing to have the Sukhois use their huge radar to effect and datalink the weapon guidance info to the Rafales for discrete attacks.

The same thing could be done with the Tejas as well. At a fifth of the cost.

Eh?

You are aware that the typical configuration of every Tornado who have delivered Storm Shadows in Iraq and Lybia was with two massive “Hidenburg” external´s (2250 litre each, thats more than the two external´s, 1000 L, of the Typhoon) and the Adla Rafale´s have been carrying two or three 2000 L´s external´s.
The fact that BAE has just picked up the CFT work left a decade ago is almost certainly a direct consequence of the SShadow integration job.

Cheers

Did they enter (as Lukos put it) ‘defended airspace’ though? Aside from mobile SHORADS and the Baghdad defences, the coalition forces in both Gulf Wars didn’t face much of air defence threat.

Broadly agree though, CFT integration will enable (UK to Libya type) exceptionally long range strikes.

Ah, the default setting of avoiding the argument by dragging in Pakistan.

Actually Pakistan wasn’t dragged in to the debate, it was the subject of the original point made (Post 760). US sanctions did NOT turn the PAF’s F-16s into hangar queens. Nor did the US wage a campaign to ensure no Pak F-16 could fly.

But somehow in a case where sanctions are applied on a country that is deep-stage manufacturing a mostly non-US aircraft including spares and engines, while supported by an OEM that is not been sanctioned, the results will be opposite.

I actually agree, but please dont try and change the contect of your flawed earlier argument. If sanction were applied Saab would not help out if placed under US pressure, HAL would not cope and you would have hanger queen Gripens. That was the point I was making, and you were disputing.

Were the PAF’s F-16s ‘hanger queens’ between 1991 and 2001, or did the US ‘take it easy’ on the entities supporting PAF?

Yeah, ’cause they will really been mega keen on helping India defy US sanctions.

SAAB has no legal or moral obligation to cease trade with a country under US sanctions. ‘Defying’ the US is not a concern.