That is precisely what is going to be. F-16s and F-18s are the primary types being replaced by the F-35, and it will improve upon them in both A2A and A2G. A2A wasn’t an afterthought in the design.

Not necessarily an afterthought, but not given an equal weight as AG. Face it the F-16 and F/A-18 are both largely used as attackers/strikers these days, but that’s not what they were designed for in the first place. The story of the F-35 is a different one. And given that there are some 30 years or so between the introduction of the F-35 and the legacies you better hope the F-35 will exceed them in AA. With its BVR capabilities the Tornado ADV was superior to the Lightning as well, though AA played a small role during the Tornado’s development. Technological developments may well make a “striker” a more dominant fighter than an older dedicated fighter. And I see that as the F-35’s way to go. It’s primarily its VLO characteristics which will help it to dominate older designs, as the Tornado ADVs BVR capabilities set it apart from the Lightning at its time.

the F-22 won’t be spotted on IRST.

That’s a tall claim and a foolish one as well. It may not be spotted as easily as the one or other airframe, but that it won’t be spotted is at best fanboy wishthinking.

Don’t pretend to be ignorant. He said he couldn’t put his weapon systems on it which meant that he couln’t get a radar lock (needed for example for gun firing solution).

No this could have meant that he wasn’t able to manoeuvre his aircraft (F-15C) into position as well and to be honest having seen that IR video of the F-22 from Farnborough do anyone really believe it would be impossible to lock on an IR missile? But to do so you have to get the target into the seekers acquisition envelope. In the case of the AIM-9M which was likely being used at that time it’s a tough challenge to do so against an F-22.

For example look at the PAK-FA thread. There is so little detail available about this aircraft, but everybody already knows how super-maneuverable, and fast it is. They also know how superior will be the (non-existing yet)radar suite, how many missiles it will hold internally. The figure 0.5m2 RCS appeared but it was dismissed because ‘everybody know that it must be much more stealthy’.

The other way round on the other side everyone “knows” that this aircraft is POS and won’t even come close to the F-35, let alone F-22 in any area. With other words it works both ways. What people miss here is the objectiveness and honesty to acknowledge that it’s virtually the same everywhere. Selling aircraft is a business and any manufacturer will try to sell his product as the best, highlighting its strength and the oppositions weaknesses, regardless of the real benefits. We have seen the LM studies about the F-35 where it was deemed better than any other fighter (spare the F-22 which wasn’t included). Everyone from the F-35 fan base hailed it as some kind of “proof”. Now we see those people whining and complaining about the evil marketing chaps at Eurofighter. Is there a real difference? Not really! But this time the other product is being presented in a better light and that’s something the one sided fanboys here can’t live with. Appears that here even lack the intellect to recognise this as lame marketing, otherwise one wonders how this topic gets so much attention.

Well the F/A-18 is not really a bomb truck, it’s a balanced multirole fighter with AA & AG missions being equally weighted. At its time it was a great fighter and it is still good, certainly not the best, but neither the worst. Remember that the F/A-18 is based on the YF-17 LWF prototype. There were of course to improve its AG capabilities and make it carrier capable which required some compromises, but it’s yet not a bomb truck as such. The F-35’s requirements were different, AG came first and AA came second. It was still required to exceed the AA performance of legacy fighters it replaces.

Thanks Peter G, somewhat messed up the lots, though my memory on the time line was accurate. Block II+ should feature the SATCOM, new INS with embedded GPS among other features.

@Spudman

I see what you are after, but the 4th root for range rule is still the same. Your claim was therefore misleading.

@Toan,
you have a small mistake in the T3A composition. Germany receives 31 and Spain 20 aircraft.

For the totals it works out as 143 Germany and 73 for Spain (without T3B).

🙂

Did they finalize on the AESA design for the Typhoon ?

Check out the Typhoon News Thread III.