Simplifications…

It is not unproven.

If you have 4 targets moving around you have a 25% chance of picking the right one.

In reality the Pk of the AMRAAM (including WVR) is around 60%, counting BVR-shots only its less than 50% (but thats against targets that have no RWR or countermeasures).

So you can expect to hit something BVR in 50% of the cases (if we are generous).

So you will have 96/2 = 48 hits assuming no jamming occurs or that jamming is completely useless.

48 hits / 4 targets per try (3 active decoys, all playing to the Home-On-Jam feature as well as giving better reflections than the target) = 12 hits on the desired target if we assume that each BriteCloud fails to do its job in 75% of the cases. This is also generous and very pro missile.

So, in the end the 12,5% Pk in BVR is based on useless jamming + chaffs (as we know isnt the case) and decoys that fail to do their job in 75% of the cases + not a single effective engagement of the IRIS-T in its anti missile hunt.

Well, the Gripen and Rafale can both stay airborne about 50% longer than the F35 and all of them don’t have to be at the front line. We are also assuming one sided first shoot capabilities with no retaliation at comparable range. Ie, it’s very very pro F35.

Janes ranked the operational costs to be 28-88% more expensive.

A larger airforce also makes the cost per plane (due to infrastructure + depot crew) lower as would be the case if anyone opted for Rafale. I’d say the comparison is pretty fair.

It will have IR-sensors in the external missiles… In the case of Gripen NG it will have sensors in both Skyward-G (for BVR performance) + at least 2 (one per IRIS-T).

Rafale OTOH will have BVR-capable MICA IR along with other missiles.

IR-sensors make the missiles less aerodynamic and generally have a shorter detection range. They also have trouble in clouds/rain whereas radar guided missiles are all weather-platforms.

It depends on the situation. In a 4 vs 4 situation internal payload would probably be enough (would end up with a 4 vs 1 scenario in the example above). I have no doubt that the F35s in this case would have no trouble getting away. The problems start to show when the enemy has more aircraft, and when those aircraft are highly survivable.

In the 4 vs 4 case, having one or two of the fighters flying with 4 external missiles each (flying behind the others in the formation) the F35 would probably come out without any losses every time and the enemy completely beaten. (at least theoretically)

But lets say it like this. Your camouflage makes sure that you can see your enemies at twice the range they can see you. Your rifle has poor accuracy and you only carry 6 bullets. Your enemies have 8-10 bullets each, the same accuracy as you but cant see you at the same range that you can see them.

Somewhere you will probably notice that trading detection range to get more bullets will be good in some cases, and in others it is better to wait for them to get closer and in your crosshairs.

The golden ratio for when to sacrifice what is depending on the opposition you face. Sometimes many missiles are the only sensible option, sometimes it isn’t. The F35 gives that choice, and thanks to stealth it is more probable that it can choose the engagements if the generals are patient (which they rarely are). So in a fictional scenario where France invades Belgium the airspace and attack vektors are limited, so the F35 is unlikely to reach local numerical superiority (Belgium has twice as many Gripens as France has F35s).

OTOH, if it was France vs Spain facing off then the stealth tactics would allow the F35 to sneak in and get numerical superiority or at least numerical parity due to the element of surprise and because the defence has to cover a lot of airspace. And thats how the F35 is intended to be used. It is a good tool for divide and conquer. But in a defensive role the aggressors picks where to focus the forces, meaning that they have both local and total numerical superiority. And then the game is different.

This is a classic example of the “sling crap faster than people can correct you” method of trolling.

Just make up a bunch of obviously flawed garbage and count on people going line by line picking it apart, then refuse to understand their corrections and try to draw the whole thing out hoping they will waste 10x as much time as you troubling themselves with actual sources and logic.

You have no idea how effective a specific jammer would be against a specific modern missile. You have no idea what counter-counter measure technology is incorporated into the F-35 and AMRAAM, etc etc. This is nothing but a bunch of poorly reasoned guesswork without a single source.

In theory the F35 is perfect, assuming that BVR missiles can’t be jammed.

This will motivate operational costs (including capital costs) of 2-3 times that of the competition.

If the missiles had a Pk of over 50% against jamming targets then it’s all good.

But in reality, just looking at whats out there now, the base Pk is less than 50% in a jammed environment. With systems like BriteCloud the missile also has multiple possible targets to choose from + much clutter. Since a normal fighter jet has a capacity of 36 stations with BriteCloud + 36 stations with chaffs + towed decoys one can assume that the missile will face at least 4 targets (3 decoys + actual target).

In the absolute best case scenario the missile will have a Pk of 0.5 x 4 = 0.125 or 12.5%. In reality this is probably optimistic if the enemy has modern jammers. 12,5% is the Pk for the correct target in this case.

To add an extra layer we could also assume IRIS-T being used as a hard-kill countermeasure (it has the capability, but the actual performance is not known). This would be a last resort but it is still in the mix…

So… in a future air battle with 16 F35 and 25 Rafale there will be 16*6 missiles 96 missiles giving a potential of 12 downed Rafales (best case) on one side and about 78 IR-guided missiles vs the F35. DIRCM can only handle one at a time and the F35 is inferior as a dog fighter. It is also too slow to exit the fight. The Rafales also have some radar-guided missiles left (but these are assumed to be useless becase F35 is just.. alien technology).

We could change the scenario to 16 F35 vs 32-48 Gripens as well.

In the end it’s all about Lanchesters laws and attrition rate. I think the assumption that missiles always will hit is a dangerous dogma to build an entire strategy around, as it assumes no technical development on the opposing side.

:stupid:

“General, we are in big trouble. Our next generation fighter will be helpless against the enemy’s Rafale hordes! A guy with a pig wearing sunglasses for his avatar figured it out!”

On the contrary, they put link-16 on F-22, because without it, it couldn’t operate in any operation USAF did around the world. So now what, F-22 is no stealth because it transmits link-16?

The F-22 has a receive-only Link-16. It receives information, but does not transmit. This has proven to be a headache in some cases because the F-22 pilots will know something that they can only relay via voice transmission.

The F-35 has both transmit and receive Link-16, but will turn off the transmit function when necessary.

Well, I am sure some one said same thing about F-15A like “Its has incredibly extensive avionics, superb maneuverability which is far better than F-4E’s level and will never need to get any heavier”. Surely F-35 will need many new features which we cannot imagine right now.

I have no idea what someone might have said back in the day.

As I have already said, I expect the F-35 to gain weight as new features are added, but I don’t foresee anything similar to the weight gain experienced by the F-15 and F-16. 5,000lbs of weight gain in the F-15’s case… that is like a full internal weapons load for an F-35 (two 2,000lb JDAMs and two AMRAAMs don’t hit 5,000lbs). Most of that weight gain was a product of the F-15 changing from a pure air to air fighter famously designed without “one pound for air to ground” into a strike fighter capable of carrying a huge load long distances.

The F-35 was designed from the start as a strike fighter and already includes all the structural weight necessary for that mission. Adding something like a new DIRCM system, or perhaps some additional EW gear would add weight, but we aren’t talking about thousands of pounds. The only way the F-35 would gain that kind of weight would be if it underwent some kind of extensive redesign/upgrade, in which case all bets are off of course.

Other than some PR advertisment, what is “stealth” datalink, really? Theoratical discussions are good, but I am not aware of anything on any known/projected aircraft that can detect good old TKS-2-27, Lazur, link-16, MIDS etc datalinks let alone capable of detecting and pinpointing the target location.

Clearly the Pentagon believes this is a very real risk given the lengths they have gone to to replace Link-16 with less detectable datalinks.

Perhaps most extreme engine improvement to same airframe came with F-15. From 107 kN to 129 kN is around 20% improvement (even Su-35’s 117S improves on AL-31F’s thrust by 16%).
Here is the maneuverability comparsion between PW-100 engined F-15A, PW-220 engined F-15C and PW-229 engined F-15E. All are clean, roughly at 50% fuel and no CFT attached:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]239266[/ATTACH]

So you can see, higher thrust with added avoincs hardly make the aircraft more maneuverable. F-15E may shine when supersonic, but for dogfighting, I would take F-15A anyday.

I am utterly convinced that current engine of F-35 is more than enough, but if you aren’t, then don’t rely on an engine upgrade. When the time comes and F-35 recieves an uprated engine, it is likely to recieve additional features which adds to empty weight as well.

There is a 5k pound weight difference between those aircraft. The F-35 will almost certainly get heavier over its life (as all fighters do), but there is no chance of a 5,000lb weight gain by 2022. Additionally, if the F-35 receives an AETD derived variable bypass engine the performance improvements will go beyond a simple increase in thrust and a decrease in fuel consumption. By varying its bypass ratio the engine should be able to achieve better performance at higher speeds.

It is true that a more powerful engine won’t help instantaneous turn performance much, it would make a significant difference in accelerate and sustained turn rate.

That said, I agree with you that the F-35’s engine is sufficient. Despite what many fanboys think the F-35 is not a slow fighter when compared on a realistic basis.

Ha. No mission creep here then.

Here goes another bloated, late to the party, way over budget defense program.

And does anyone wonder why the world at large considers the US DoD to be a bunch of stupid, inept, spoilt brats when it comes to defence procurement? They essentially hold the country’s finances hostage with every program and refuse to learn from their repeated mistakes.

So you don’t know the requirements.

You don’t know what trade-offs were examined.

You don’t the proposals.

…but of course you are already sure you know better. You realize this actually says a lot more about you than any bomber, right?

Is it too much to ask that people conduct the most basic research before inventing theories? It has been widely reported that the F-35’s IR reduction measures go way beyond simply using fuel as a coolant. No 4th generation fighter comes close…

Low Observable Asymetric Nozzle (LOAN)
–geometrical shaping
–an advanced cooling system
–special coatings on internal and external structures.

Results
–Reduced IR signature
–Increased life of the nozzle divergent flaps
–significant maintenance cost savings.

General

-Reduced IR signature
•No afterburner
•Longer exhaust pipe
-even out exhaust and reduce “hot spot”
•Masking by aircraft structure
•Mixing the exhaust with cold air before it exits the aircraft.
–From fan section
–Ambient cooling air

http://forskning.tekna.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Norway-and-F-35-7-nov-2013.pdf

The classified “sawtooth” features that ring the nozzle help consolidate the exhaust into a so-called “spike” signature, while other secret techniques have been employed to combat and minimize the engine heat signature.

“We had to deal with that, and we dealt with that,” O’Bryan said, declining to offer details.

The F-35 meets or exceeds the services’ infrared signature specifications. Many of the standard fighter engine features such as a big afterburner spray bar assembly and related piping are missing from the F-35. The F135 power plant, built by Pratt & Whitney, is truly a “stealth engine,” he said.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx/url