Once again, this isn’t an accounting exercise. The aircraft in question weren’t flying the same missions, and even if they were a single shoot-down even for the F-117 hardly provides a statistically significant sample to draw conclusions from.

Yes, there is not enough statistical data to draw any definitive conclusions in either direction. That is why I dont draw any far fetched conclusions (other than that stealth isnt the only factor decisive for survival). We have 2 hit stealth aircrafts and about 7 hit F16s in a sample of over 20’000 sorties.

The big difference is that the F16s flew more dangerous missions (like Package Q), sead sorties and low alt bombings while the F117 stayed in the safer medium alt, night time strikes.

Again with this idea that a missile needs to achieve a similar turn radius to intercept an aircraft.. :rolleyes:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]223045[/ATTACH]

Thats your conclusion, this is what I said..

If all you have to do is maintain a lead then it is ok, 10 deg/se is more than enough even if the target pulls 12G, if the lead has to change then that is bad news.

And what do we see in the picture? We see a maintained lead. We dont see it changing after burnout.

But I have to admit that I didnt expect you to use any sources, even though I could have dismissed it as you do by touting “practice isnt real war!%!%!!!”. Well done. Next time I hope you will prove a point.

I’ve one single remark regarding the emphasis put on the Meteor. Dynamically it’s a winner. But what kind of threat will such a missile face in the next decade: DIRCM or Laser. There is one thing that you certainly don’t want to have as a missile approaching that kind of defended target: it’s a partially filled fuel tank.

If the target uses lasers the easiest wy to get around that is to fire two missiles. By the time the first one may be decimated by the laser the other will be so close that it will hit the target.

We also have several other problems it will have to face.
1 Jamming
2 Chaffs, especially tricky if combined with jamming
3 Decoys (towed active decoys in the above environment)
4 Possibility for the target to use IRIS-T as a potential hard kill countermeasure
5 …future DEV (lasers)
6 …future decoys

However it has passed a huge hurdle by striking inferior kinematic performance from that list.

This simply isn’t accurate. The Eurocanards are looking to avoid going to the merge just like every other modern air force. They certainly will use jammers to enhance survivability, but then so will 5th generation aircraft. (who will generally rely on off-board jamming)

As I said, they are designed to be able to win the fight in a merge. Otherwise they wouldnt have been designed for extreme maneuverability. I know that superiority in BFM was one key requirement for at least two of the three fighters. Does this mean that they wherent designed to be good at BVR? No, only in your world of sqewing facts.

There is really no reason to believe GaN will shift the balance of radars vs jammers in favor of the jammers. People around here talk about GaN like it is magic pixie dust or something… it has advantages but it does not enable anything fundamentally different and it will certainly be incorporated into radars in the coming years.

Pls read about energy concentration and how that effects the radars. Jammers today are already good enough, but future jammers will be even better. Beamed jamming will, according to the radar formula, be a huge bummer for radars.

:rolleyes: Exercises… do you think the F-15s were using their radars as if it was wartime? It is standard operating procedure to limit radar (and jammer) capability during exercises to avoid giving anything away. You can’t take result from an exercise as representative of the real world.

You think the Indians used their jammers as if it was wartime?

Well, according to you we cant use real world data as if it is representative of real life either. Or can we attribute a Pk of <20% for radar guided missiles now (as has been the historical number), or can we say that the F117 was less survivable than F16 or A-10 (also demonstrated in two wars). Oh, i forgot… that doesnt support your fanatic point of view so lets dismiss the real world data with any type of excuse (lets go for “this stime is different” and point to a marketing vid).

EDIT: In all of the claims I make I have either sources or a clear methodology that supports my claims. You have never pointed out where either of these are wrong but rather went on woth an authoritorian style of arguing. Instead of being vague, show me mathematically where the claims or methods are wrong and I will even grant you a smileyface from the bottom of my heart as well as backing down from my claims.

I give a sources, you didn’t give me anything…
IRST scan the sky like radar, I give you a numbers from real sources ( including targets asspect, speed), but you don’t like it and you said it’s not true without giving any sources…

A radar has less trouble of swiftly scanning a wider sector or doing track while scan compared to a single camera that has to be aimed at the specific target.

Atmospheric conditions have a bigger impact on IRST/EOTS than on radar (an X-band radar can lose ca 0,01-0,2dB per km depending on atmospheric conditions while IRST/EOTS can be stoped by a smaller rain cloud). But otoh, IRST/EOTS isnt easily jammed.

Image displaying atmospheric absorption, different weather not included.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222991[/ATTACH]
Visible light would be further out to the right, ie higher absorption, IR starts at 300GHz, X-band is 8-12GHz

You’ve made Meteor look much worse than it is, by trying to force it to behave like AIM-120.

That is absolutely true. And despite that it turns out to be vastly superior. To me that speaks volumes about the actual performance.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The F-35 can ingress highly defended airspace far better than any conventional aircraft and at SEAD it can close in for a higher pk shot, particularly important if there are long range SAMs and hostile aircraft in the vicinity. Those are fairly obvious facts and yes older generation aircraft are equally good when operating in sanitized air space.

Not saying stealth is useless, just that in order to make use of it you need extensive mission planning. And at the end of the day what kept air defences down was fear of SEAD/DEAD, good EW support and night time raids. I think you will find paige 101 interesting.

Five types of aircraft-F-111 Fs, F-1 5Es, A-6Es, A-1Os, and F-16s-flew at
least as many night strikes as the F- 117. As shown in table 11.9, of these
aircraft, F-111 Fs, A-Os, and F-16s also incurred no losses at night, and the
A-6Es, A-Os, and F-16s received no damage at night. In this context, it is
notable that the aircraft that incurred the highest absolute number of
casualties, but not the highest attrition rate, the A-10, incurred neither
losses nor damage at night, although it conducted approximately the same
number of night sorties as the F- 117. These data suggest that, in Desert
Storm, flying at night was much safer than during the day, regardless of
size of radar cross-section or other aircraft-specific characteristics.

Every aircraft has their strong suit. The A-10 for instance was extremely cheap to operate, could go in both day and night, sustain heavy amounts of damage and usually get back to base anyway. One reason why medium altitude night strikes where so effective was because there was no warning to IADS. During daytime spotters could warn the IADS about incoming aircraft and create a dangeroud popup threat environment. That did not happen as frequently during the nights.

I just went through the GAO, I must admit I was corrected on basic issue i.e. despite the prevalence of SA-2s and SA-3s, the threat from the IADS was a lot lighter than I thought. With regard to the F-117, it concludes that there isn’t enough data from Desert Storm to prove or disprove the assertion that the F-117 was a safer bet than other aircraft. However –

1. Surviveability – Cruise missiles are not that hard to intercept even if it was beyond Iraq’s capability. Israel shot down about 20 or so AS-5 Kelts in 1973. Theoretically, even a MANPAD can be used to bring one down.
2. Cost – At $1-2 mil/unit its an expensive proposition. An enemy saturating the field with dummies can make it far more expensive.
3. Time factor – Typically military campaigns are preceded by a fairly long phase of intelligence gathering. However for a rapid intervention, the time to identify and verify even fixed ground targets may not be available. In which, the air component will have start operating without the usual missile barrages leading the way.

Well… can we agree that stealth is a good enabler in some cases but by no means a decisive factor when it comes to survivability? I think this quote says it all.

Advocates of the F- 117 can argue, based on its performance in Desert
Storm, that it alone combined the advantages of stealth and LGBS,
penetrated the most concentrated enemy defenses at will, permitted
confidence in achieving desired bombing results, and had perfect
survivability. Advocates of the A-10 can, for example, argue that it, unlike
the F- 117, operated both day and night; attacked both fixed and mobile
targets employing both guided and unguided bombs; and like the F- 117,
suffered no casualties when operating at night and at medium altitude.
Similarly, other aircraft also performed missions the F-1 17 was unable to
and were used successfully-and without losses-against similar types of
strategic targets. Each aircraft of the various types has both strengths and
limitations; each aircraft can do things the other cannot. Therefore,
despite a sharp contrast in program unit costs, we find it inappropriate,
given their use, performance, and effectiveness demonstrated in Desert
Storm, to rate one more generally “capable” than the other.

How many country’s are developing SEAD weapons today? None among the F-35’s customers AFAIK. And in the event that a weapon still has to be mated – it cost about $36 million to integrate the Paveway IV on the F-35 including flight testing. Even if the same exercise on another platform would have cost half as much, the balance is still not high enough to raise an affordability question on the aircraft itself.

Well, its about the possibility to do so. If you have a system that you can control then you can develop the countries arms industry. South africa have benifited from this when they bought the Grpen (they integrate their own missiles, they produe their own rwr etc). Stuff like that is good for the industry in the country. Many countries have various projects to develop their own systems, but if integrating them cost to much it usually ends up as just another testbed.

This is the first I’ve ever heard about SAAB, or rather Selex, stealing a march over rest of the world by fielding a GaN fighter radar in the close future.

I think currently they use GaAs and it’s quite possible that will be in the delivered ac as well, but…
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Markets/Saab-Korea/About-Saab-Korea/Defence-Systems-for-Korea/Your-Partner-In-Aeronautics-/

Saab is currently developing a new generation fighter radar, introducing a GaN AESA antenna, a multichannel architecture and highly increased processing performance. This enables significant performance enhancements compared to radars of today

The Vixen family currently is GaAs based but in near future (whatever that is) the intent is to use GaN.

As for the Rafale being cheaper than the F-35, there aren’t enough figures to conclusively prove that. The operating cost figures that you quoted from Jane’s for the Rafale don’t appear low enough to mitigate the F-35’s lower procurement cost.

I just go by size and complexity. How often is a heavier machine, built with more expensive materials cheaper than the small one? I know that when they ordered Gripen one primary requirement was size. If it could be made smaller than the existing jets then it could also be made cheaper. I use the same deductive reasoning with Raffie and F35.

Since the Meteor is powered through its flight, the conclusion would then be that it has a 10 times larger NEZ.

Thats the problem I struggle with. Thrust is a very decisive factor as long as it can compensate for energy losses during turning. And as long as the Meteor can do that the target is within the NEZ.

Hmm.. I’ll think learn Swedish and get back to you on that one. 😉

It’s pretty simple, I’ll translate that.

Basically the high spikes are the target at two different times. (X axis is time). Lower dotted line is average noise level, upper dotted line is detection threshold. Falskt larm = false alarm, Mål = target.

When the enemy starts jamming, the average noise level rises then the detection threshold must be raised as well. If the noise level is higher than the returns of the target then the target slips through.

With multi channel, AESA based jamers it is easy to concentrate jamming in one direction. Lets say rwr notices an enemy radar in a pretty narrow sector then jamming it with an AESA based jammer is pretty easy. DRFM makes it easier to narrow down what bands to jam and it also increases the effectiveness of the jamming, sometimes to such an extent that the radar cant distinguish real targets from fake ones even when the target returns are well aboe the threshold.

Which would imply an AESA can be nearly disabled by barrage jamming from a 15kW source? (^ This isn’t a case of DRFM jamming as I understand it).

Radars need to be jammed at the right frequency and you need a certain amount of pikoWatts per sqm (10^-12) to force the detection threshold to go to a higher level. But if you know the direction of the enemy, then jamming gets easy.

Since all AAM save for the Meteor (and R-27 IIRC) have single pulse motor, the chances of outmaneuvering a missile are fairly high? Which would imply that the difference in surviveability between an F-16 and say F-18 or MiG-29 is huge, owing to the higher sustained turn rate on the former?

Depends on where you are. A missile at high speed has still pretty decent maneuvering capabilities simply because of the energy state. So sacrificing… 35% of that speed to get that final turn is acceptable for a missile moving at 1200m/s. Even after that turn, after the burnout it will move at the target at 780m/s. The problem here is if the target for instance is doing a high or low Yo yo. This means the missile will have to waste energy by leading (still with thrust), and once the thrust is out it will have to compensate a bad vector by maneuvering even harder.

A missile typically has a thrust between 30-60G meaning that it can turn however it wishes. It could theoretically pull 40-50deg/sec at mach 1 and still accelerate. That, for me, is the NEZ. But missiles typically referred to as 40-45G capable are so with thrust, at low altitude. This means that with thrust, at low altitude (where control surfaces have authority to easily position the missile if desired AoA) an AIM120 can pull 40G @ 1200m/s (roughly). Impressive as it may sound it translates to about 18,7 deg/sec when a semi modern fighter can pull 20 deg/sec sustained.

Now, remove the thrust from the equation and tell me if the missile is more or less agile than a fighter jet at lower altitudes. As a comparison most missiles with public data lose around half of the turning performance at low altitude after burnout, at high altitude they basically have no turn performance… but neither have the targets.

Given that every major air force with the exception of Saudi Arabia appears to be investing some type of stealth, I’m not as willing to bet it against the principle even on economic grounds.

I’d say a stealth fighter with similar support elements as a 4th gen fighter is always a more survivable option. But with better jammers (like GaN based AESA-jammers) the ability to obtain a radar lock by using the radar is severely crippled.

I personally dont know if kinematic performance or stealth will be the most important factor, I jut know that if the radars get jammed (and I know they can) then we are down to IRST and WVR.

Meteor is not powered by a “non throttleable rocket engine”. Its engine is throttleable. The engine is throttleable, & as Mercurius says, it is powered all the way..

The Aim 120D has a rocket engine, and that is what I described there.

The reason I used the term burn time for the Meteor is because I dont know how much energy is stored in the ramjet fuel so the intent was to make it somewhat comparable. I know there is enough fuel in it to have a sustained propulsin for more than 20 seconds. So in order to be as unbiased as possible I attempt to use the lowest known figures for the systems I prefer and compare it to the best validated numbers i have for the opposing systems.

Obviousy this has led to me being bashed from both sides of the camp.

Just to show why it is relevant.
Lets say the aim120 has enough energy to maintain 1200m/s for 8 seconds while… an other missile has enough energy stored to sustain 1200m/s for 4 seconds and then cruise ad 900m/s for another 20sec. By just looking at drag @40kft we get that one missile can sustain 8s*2830N (before decelaration) and the other can sustain 4s*2830N + 20s*1590N giving one that sustains 22640Ns and the other sustains 31800Ns, the comparable 1200m/s sustain time would be 8 vs 11 seconds or 9,6 vs 13,2km instead of the 9,6km vs 22,8km we would get by using different flight profiles.

I try to make comparisons into apples to apples for that particular reason. So far none of the ones complaining have given me the numbers required to make a real comparison so I simply can’t produce a better one atm.

Nothing in your link contradicts what I posted. To repeat –

A. The F-117 was the only aircraft that regularly hit the heavily defended Baghdad. Your report clearly says that only 50% of the strategic targets attacked by the F-117, were hit by other conventional aircraft.

B. The F-117 did operate with a much higher degree of autonomy. Your report states ‘F-117s occasionally benefited from jammer support aircraft’. In contrast, strike missions flown by other aircraft almost always had jamming and SEAD escorts.

Ths is what you initially claimed

That’s one of looking at it. Another way is when operating in heavily defended airspace or carrying out a SEAD/DEAD strike, an F-35 can be relied upon to do the job and return while a legacy aircraft is employed being at least somewhat expendable.

and the numbers are clear, legacy fighters performed equally or better in Desert Storm. The whole reason the F117s didnt always have EW support was simple, they didnt want to alert IADS that something was going on so they tried to sneak in with the jets by avoiding the active early warning radars.

Anyway, this is what GAO say…

In effect, the data indicate that most Desert Storm aircraft casualties
occurred during the day. Therefore, it is simply less likely that any aircraft,
including the F-117, which operated only at night, would have been hit or
lost, especially after radar SAMS were suppressed and low-altitude attacks
were discontinued.

And what exactly did it mean to stop sending strike packages over Baghdad?

Other operating decisions were also taken to increase survivability. For
example, after two F-16 losses on day three in the Baghdad area, the Air
Force ceased tasking large package daylight strikes of F-1 6s against
metropolitan Baghdad targets. Similarly, after A- 10 attacks on the
Republican Guard, during which two aircraft were hit while operating at
lower altitudes, the A-10s were ordered to cease such attacks. Instead,
much higher altitude attacks by F-16s and B-52s, with unguided bombs,
were used.

ahh, so it was only daytime strikes…

The F117 may, for PR purpose have been alone in downtown Baghdad,
but that wasnt necessarily the most heavily defended areas.

However, it is relevant to note that the defense systems located in the
Baghdad area did not necessarily protect downtown Baghdad at a higher
threat level than the rest of the overall metropolitan area. This would be
logical, since likely targets for any of Iraq’s adversaries were not only
downtown, but were dispersed-along with radar SAM sites-throughout
the Baghdad area.

So being alone in downtown Baghdad was more of a PR stunt, just as the statements below.

A significant claim made by the Air Force is that because of stealth, F- 117s
were able to achieve tactical surprise each night of the campaign,
including the first night when F- I17s attacked the key Iraqi air defense
nodes and, in so doing, opened the way for attacks by nonstealth aircraft,
thereby greatly reducing potential losses. However, we found the
following Desert Storm information to be inconsistent with the Air Force
claim.
AAA Before and After F- 117 Bomb Impacts. A number of Air Force officials
told us that because AAA did not start until after the first F- 117 bombs had
exploded, this was evidence that F- 117s had achieved tactical surprise.
However, we found that the absence of AAA prior to bomb impact was
neither consistent for all F- 117 missions nor unique to F-i 17s.
An Air Force after-action report stated that in the case of the A-10, AAA
began after the first bomb detonation, not just sometimes but “in most
cases” and in “the majority of first passes.”3” Similarly, pilots of other
aircraft, including F-16s and F-15Es, also reported the same phenomenon.
They encountered no AAA until after their bombs exploded, and like the
F-1 17s, they were subject to AAA primarily during egress from the target.
Moreover, F-1 17 pilots told us that, on occasion, AAA in a target area would
erupt “spontaneously”-before they had released their bombs or the
bombs had exploded. In response to this threat, the F-1 17 Tactical
Employment manual states (on pp. 3-11, 3-29, and 3-3 1) that F-117
refueling and jamming support procedures were altered during Desert
Storm to delay “spontaneous” AAA in the target area.
[DELETED]
In sum, the claim that the F- 117s consistently achieved tactical surprise is
not fully consistent with the information we obtained. The absence of AAA
prior to F- 117 bomb impact was not universally observed and was not
unique to the F-117. [DELETED]
In contrast to the Air Force illustration to the Congress that F- 117s require
only tanker support in combat (see fig. II.4), Desert Storm reports and
participants stated explicitly that the F- 117s did, in fact, receive more than
just tanker support in Desert Storm.
At the end of 1991, after press accounts stated that the Air Force had
exaggerated the degree to which F-I17s operated without defense
suppression and jamming support, Air Force officials then concurred that
standoff jamming from EF-1 1 ls had been employed from time to time in
conjunction with F-117 strikes.

It does get easier, but the initial phases of the campaign cannot be wished away.

Just as daylight… Standoff missiles (which have greater range than SAMs), low alt night time penetration all enable a force to hit targets. I think operation Entebbe is the finest example here. IDF managed to penetrate IADS with three C130 just by flying low.

In 2003 we also saw a lot more standoff missiles being used for.. wait for it… strikes in downtown Baghdad. Yes, you heard me correctly, hundreds of warheads, dropped on the target without ever having to send in one single aircraft.

Almost all customers will use the same avionics fit as the US with the only notable exceptions being Israel and Japan. Aside from that there’s the Meteor, Paveway IV, JSM and SOM to be integrated. Hardly a herculean undertaking.

So what you are saying is that unless the country already has a weapons program for the JSF that all other users wat (like… say country specific SEAD weapons), then the integration will be expensive as f**k. But as long as they stick to JDAMs its ok…

Sounds like the best idea ever.

More than can afford GaN upgrades for the Eurocanards I’d imagine, given the likely lower costs of an American radar. The ES-05 is a GaAs based AESA.

Thats what is flying now, I know that SAAB are moving as much as possible to GaN. But we will have to wait and see. Regarding affordability… speculate as much as you wish. All I know is that the ones chosing something other than the F35 (like Rafale or Gripen) will actually have enough money left to afford upgrades.

Can’t use the IRST (uses active LRF for ranging). Can’t use radar (gives away position to RWRs). It would appear BVR combat has become nonviable.

Fortunately, the missile launch platform doesn’t need to self designate the target. It can be done by a radiating aircraft at long range and targeting data safely handed off to the shooter.

*Sigh! Do you know the sinus-rule, what narrow band search and autonomous LOAL actually entails? Sure, using those modes greatly decreases the Pk, but will the targets stay to find out?

Do you understand that a non throttleable rocket engine at low alt simply will have zero kinematic performance a few seconds after burn out (which occurs in a few seconds)? Obligatory has already shown this in countless posts, a lot of good stuff in the Aim120 range questions theread.

The RCS gap between the F-35 and the EF is much higher than between the EF and F-16. And the performance difference between the Aim-120D and Meteor is much lower than between the Aim-120C and Aim-7.

As far as an F-35 customer is concerned, the F-35’s weapons bay is being modified to carry upto 6 Aim-120s, the same is unlikely to be feasible for the Meteor. That said, the Meteor still remains an option.

Head on RCS went from ca 5sqm for F16A (1,2 F16C) to 0,1sqm (Eurocanards) and with F35 its about 0,001-0,005sqm. Basically the order of magnitude is the same in RCS reduction. Yes, these mumbers are public. That does not mean they are correct but its all there is. Basically we get a difference of 50x for F16A vs EF2000 (5/0,1=50), or for EF2000 vs F35 ( 0,1/0,001=100 or 0,1/0,005=20, avg=>0,1/0,003=33,3).

If we are playig the numbers game, as you obviously are, we get to one conclusion. The Aim120D has a NEZ of just 11km (powered range), after that it enters a glide where thrust lift doesnt exist any more and Pk starts to drop. One might say that the retained momentum for the next 2 seconds of light turning is still enough to call it within NEZ so we can extend the NEZ to 13km. It will still kill outside this range but Pk will drop substantially.

Meteor has a burn time of 20-30 seconds (going by the low numbers here) as compared to 8-9 for the Aim120D. This should mean a range of 120-275% longer NEZ (counted as burn time).

Radar detection ranges, in good conditions, are as follows. APG-81 vs 0,1sqm sized target, un-jammed conditions: 110km, in EW environment this could be WVR.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222976[/ATTACH]
By increasing the returned amount of energy in the correct radar frequency the desired signal gets untraceable. Basically it is the radar formula working here.

If the radar is expecting… say 0,15pW but the EW support if sending back drfm noise of 15KW in the general direction of the sender, lets say over an area of 10m sqm (10’000×1’000m) then we get a power density of 15’000’000W/10’000’000=1,5W per sqm.

The APG81 has a receiver the size of 1,54sqm meaning that the power it receives is 2,31W, while sensitivity is set to 0,15pW. In essence the jamming in this case is 15’400 trillion times greater than the sensitivity. So naturally the signal is saturated and because of the modern way the radars are built the jamming has to operate in more frequencies with high accuracy. Quite possibly reducing saturation to 15 trillion times more power per sqm than the radar is set to operate at.

So the sensitivity has to be adjusted and radar range is shortened.

So stealth is good for improving survivability, but old school tactics are still viable. And as you see, the improvement from cold war fighters (F16A, MiG 29, Su27etc compared to the eurocanards is in the same ballpark as the F35 compared to the eurocanards). the difference here is that the f35 is sacrificing kinematic performance whilst the eurocanards improved everything from kinematic performance, to payload, to RCS while in some cases even lowering costs.

Ppg-factor has not been accounted for and Im hung over so I might have put the numbers in the wrong order of magnitude. But in general the rule is simple. If you have more energy per sqm than the receiver is set to handle it has to decrease sensitivity to a working level, high powered jamming makes radar very hard to use. This example is likely a bit optimistic, but the results would be similar even with 4KW jamming. It is also worth noting that RWR antennas have the same sensitivity, but a smaller size than those in a radar. is sort of shows how impossible it is to beat good rwr if you want to use a radar.

The AMRAAM can pull what… 40Gs or so. I’d imagine it would be something similar for advanced R-77 variants.

At sea level with propulsion, yes. At high alt… no. without propulsion, no.

Remember that the interesting thing is deg/sec, just because Im such a good sport I will give you a table with G-loading, speed, turnrate as well as where various objects fit in.

Against 4G & 4.5G aircraft it will certainly dominate the skies.

Lets see about that?

That’s one of looking at it. Another way is when operating in heavily defended airspace or carrying out a SEAD/DEAD strike, an F-35 can be relied upon to do the job and return while a legacy aircraft is employed being at least somewhat expendable. And while the F-35 production will carry on past 2030, attrition replacements for most current types will mean waiting until second hand units are made available by a friendly air force.

I think history has shown that older jets typically have performed better than stealth bombers (maybe the B2 could be called an exception).

In Iraq we saw it for the F111, A10, F16 vs the F117. Att types carried out more sorties, had better mission success ratio and cost a lot less while having the exact same losses when operated in the same mission profiles.

I Allied Force we saw that flying the F117 (with 1 damaged and 1 downed ac) was the least safe ac to operate. SEAD support came from older aircraft.

We see today that older jets, with new avionics, are just as capable as new ones in the conflicts at hand (Libya, Syria etc). Carrying out SEAD/DEAD is more about having enough numbers in the sky rather than relying on a single gimmick/feature (as was proven in Allied Force).

Except that the cost to acquire it, is comparable or less than most 4.5G fighters. In fact the only feasible alternative for the F-35 customer looking for more options, is the Gripen NG. And the NG’s technological edge (such as it is) will not endure a decade down the line, unlike the F-35 where the size of the program ensures that it will receive a consistent stream of upgrades sanctioned and funded by the US DoD.

But costs are not the same as for 4,5th gen fighters. Firstly, we already know that it will use more than 40% more fuel than the Rafale, just from going by weight. (relevant because weight –> more thrust needed for the same speed)

We are also talking about an aircraft that will need 40% more building material than the Rafale (including more expensive materials due to the compromises in weight and space management internally).

And do note that Rafale is roughly 25-35% up from Gripen NG in terms of weight and fuel (F404/RM8 isnt the most fuel efficient engine).

Regarding technological edge, that is highly speculative. Considering the messed up approach of software blocks with everything included I think that the upgrading of the F35 will be a lot more expensive and offer fewer advantages compared to say the Gripen Es approach with split avionics core. (in the F35 there is a physical split, but the software is still compiled in blocks meaning more bugs and longer TTM –> higher costs).

At the same time we already know that…
* the APG81 will use GaAs, and not GaN as the european fighters
* we know that the european fighters (at least Gripen) will use a moving plate on the radar, while the APG 81 is fixed
* we know that the IRST systems used will be designed with a focus on airborne targets for the eurobirds while the F35 EOTS is designed for ground targets
* we know that at least Gripen E will carry active decoys
* the eurobirds will use the actual Meteor and not the one with clipped control surfaces
* some things wont change, F35 will have lower RCS and the Eurobirds will have superior kinematic performance. The current Gripen C can pull +10G today just to mention one example (3’000ft, near corner speed). One target will be harder to see for the missile, the other will be harder to hit or get close to.

All fighters have their pros and cons. The F35 is by no means the end of the story for 4th gen fighters. Just look at the stuff above for a few examples.

Another part worth noting is that the philosophy before has been to put stuff like EOTS in an external pod. The reason is simple. Upgrades cost less and you can fit larger systems in the pods with external EPU and cooliing if needed.