ASQ-239 can perform jamming independent of APG-81, it has its own antenna for that task (they came from 2 different manufacturer, APG-81 came from Northrop while ASQ-239 is made by BAE)
F-35 can also carry fiber optic towed decoy. In short, it should be more than capable of jamming outside frontal area.

Towed decoys yes, ASP-239 active jamming no. It has its own antennas, sure, but those are not for active ECM. The link says “providing the aircraft with radio-frequency and infrared countermeasures”, i.e. chaff and flares. There are provisions to upgrade the system to a full ECM suite afaik.

F-15 with 4 missiles is limited to Mach 2.1 at max thrust and Mach 2.2 with V-max.

F100-100 engines haven’t been in use for quite some time now. Mach 2.3+ with -220 engines. Also, use of the V-max switch is prohibited. 😉

Unlikely look at the shape of the seeker head.
Found this: https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?64669-Python-5-For-USAF
So Python 5 seems plausible.

Edit: Looks the same to me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-15I_Ra%27am_refule.jpg

Time on station and range are all tied to fuel. They are all just different ways to describe using the same feature. However, we are specifically talking about the F-15C and not the F-15E, so it does not have “that” much fuel. In a clean A2A config (no EFTs), the F-35 actually has a longer combat radius than the F-15C but loses to the F-15C when it carries EFTs (by ~300nm).

F-15Cs might get CFTs now, so there’s that.
But the F-35 with 8+ tons internal fuel better outranges an F-15C with 6+ tons internal fuel, both at similar weights. It would be terrible if it didn’t.

Speed is a non-issue since no F-15 has gone above Mach 1.4 in combat.

Doesn’t mean it’s a non-issue. Time to get to Mach 1.4 matters. Also does that include non-USAF combat? One could argue USAF F-15s never faced a serious opponent that required them to go faster. Also, Mach 1.4 over the Iraqi desert is more than Mach 1.4 elsewhere due to climate.

As far as the EW, no, it does not stack up against the F-35’s, especially in the area of jamming or situational awareness.

Hopefully, after EPAWSS has been canned. Again, you better hope the modern day ASQ-239 beats the Eagles ancient ALQ-135. Unless active jamming outside the frontal area is required, ALQ-135 still has the edge there.

The one showing the MAWS units made me wonder — three MAWS units are displayed, but presumably there are more ? Perhaps forward right and rear right, in addition to forward left and rear left?? If yes it seems the Gripen E/F will have 5 MAWS units in total?

You really think Saab is only going to install the left hand side sensors? :rolleyes:

Yeah, six MAWS units. From Hensholdt (previously PAWS-2 but it got nixed in favour of more modern sensors).

With the downward facing sensor located at the back below the engine, do you happen to know where the 6th, upward facing sensor is located? Maybe behind the cockpit? Or in front of the cockpit next to the IRST dome?

F-15E now using AIM-9X. Here on a mission somewhere over the middle east. Also, some coffee talk. Starbucks the best? Really?
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/596205/cockpits-and-coffee-episode-iii

Also I noticed whilst browsing books today that the outer hardpoints of the ADV were plumbed, and with pylons installed could in theory carry another pair of Hindenburg tanks. Or an AMRAAM each, or triple-clusters of ASRAAM!

I doubt that very much. Those tanks are about 2 tons, and all an IDS can carry on stations 1/2 are countermeasure pods. What would be the point of strengthening the wings for a capability never used.

In theory yes the ADV could carry anything the IDS could except JP233 and MW-1, but in practice it was only cleared with the usual AAMs.

Carry maybe but use? Without A/G avionics such as a dedicated radar the ADV is a pretty limited A/G platform.

Time will tell now.

Indeed it will. But chances are pretty slim with the B not being offered and VSTOL not required. 😉

Not sure what you put in “endurance..”
But as a general rule, you eat up half of your external fuel on the extra drag alone. If that makes any sense.

I’m aware of that general rule and it might even come close to reality when we talk about range and Hornet wing tanks.
But endurance is another question. Drag is lower when you just loiter, and/or have less draggy pylon/tank combo.

0.39 for the F-35A but the lower interference drag should translate into a significantly higher combat radius than the Rafale & EF.

It’s 18250/(29300+18250) = 0.384 according to Dec.2017 fast facts if we want to nitpick… anyway, added drag from drop tanks doesn’t affect endurance that much.

You’re missing his point. The wings are not optimized for max. range/endurance because they’re oversized due to maneuverability concerns. Beyond the optimum lift/drag point, increasing the wing area results in a lower aspect ratio (for the same wingspan), greater friction drag, and therefore lower range/endurance.

So you’re implying F-35s wings are better for rance/endurance because they’re too small for optimal maneuverability? That would be a pretty bad design choice for a fighter aircraft, no?
I got the point. I’m arguing F-35A wings are too small, smaller than they would be if driven only by aerodynamic requirements, incl. range/endurance.
Of course you wouldn’t increase wing area without changing other aspects like wingspan.