yes, a science paper supporting my theory that

which “science paper” are we talking about here ?

the tail surfaces add rcs

No one deny that extra control surface add RCS , question is how much ? , at what aspect

what do you got that support your theory that your idol F-35 has lower rcs than a pancake,
other than wishful thinking ?

of equal size , same material then surely less control surface is better for RCS
However, B-2 is much bigger than F-35. They donot use the same kind of RAM either.
UAV are smaller than F-35 but they can’t be too costly , so their RAM probably not as good
Then the next question is how much is the different ? if one of them has RCS = -30 dBsm , the others got RCS = -35 dBsm then it does not really matter

And that’s the problem.. If you wanna do self-escort, then you can’t carry more than a pitiful load of 2x AIM-120 and one large bomb

or 2 AIM-120 and 8 SDB

No, it still needs Growlers.. US NAVY made it quote clear that the EW capability of the F-35 provides only a partial protection and that NGJ (or Growlers) will be required

jamming power required is proportional to RCS value, if the defense radar is powerful enough that F-35 need a Growler to escort jamming then no amount of jamming aircraft would be enough to protect a conventinal aircraft like F-18E or Rafale

And no, it’s not an air superiority fighter AT ALL and is more akin to F/A-18 than F-16 anyway.

No modern fighter is designed for pure superiority role apart from the F-22 really,and even F-22 getting modification do the ground work

as far as I can say, the Super 530 is always carried on inner wing pylons, so you either have two drop tanks there or the Super 530, but can’t have both

May be rare like f-16 with 4 AGM-88 , but i dont quite see why Mirage wouldnt be able to carry 2 Super 530 in the inner pylons
It seen carry something much bigger there

As a configuration with 2 Super 530 missiles plus 2 tanks is impossible, I’d consider the comparison useless.

Why though ? Mirage has many missiles pylon

The range numbers for the Gripen NG seem pretty comparable with the ones for the good old Mirage 2000, 800 NM with two externals and four 250 kg bombs, and that M53P has a lousy SFC…

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mirage-2000.htm

Seem to contradict with this

They probably mistaken nm and km ?

There are some conflicting information out there

https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/081125_is_syria_air_sam.pdf

EF 311 kg/m^2
Rafale 326 kg/m^2
Gripen 336 kg/m^2
F-15 358 kg/m^2
Su-27 371 kg/m^2
F-22 375 kg/m^2
F-4 phantom 383 kg/m^2
F-16C Block30 430 kg/m^2
F-35 446 kg/m^2
MiG-31 665 kg/m^2

Boeing 747 727 kg/m^2

(Lower=better)

To quote Andraxxus again :

1- Based on what fuel? A EF at full fuel can be easily matched by F-35 at ~50% fuel. Without comparing them within a specified range/payload its apples to oragnes comparison.

2- And wing loading alone gives us what exactly? Its only a trade off between Drag coefficient (which increases with AOA) and Wing Area, due to Cl is linear but Cd is exponential.
a) higher the wingloading, more efficient is the aircraft at minimal AOAs = at cruising, level flight acceleration, low altitude sustained turns, high supersonic medium altitude maneuverability etc.
b) lower wing loading allows less drag in thinner air when AOA is sufficently high (because greater A means less Cl is required, so less AOA which leads to smaller Cd) = instantenious turns, medium altitude subsonic maneuverability, high altitude maneuverability.

So with high wing loading, F-16 Trades off slight high altitude performance for slighly better low altitude EM capability. F-15 trades off low altitude performance to be stay efficent at high altitude. Just like F-35 and F-22 relation, I see nothing wrong about that.

About rather detailed explaination of wingloading:

Aircraft G load * Gravitational acceleration * aircraft mass = 0,5 * density * wing area * Lift coefficient * V^2. If you move wing area to opposide side;
Aircraft G load * G * Wing loading = 0,5 * density * Cl * V^2 ; Assuming we are comparing aircraft on equal basis, G, density and V^2 is equal so can be negelected.

Ability to pull Gs is inversely proportional to wing loading and directly proportional to lift coefficent of the aircraft. In other words, wingloading alone is meaningless without talking about specifics of the aircraft. If aircraft are mostly similar (so their lift coefficients is similar) Wing loading is an effective method for comparing.

For example. F-16C vs F-35A? they are similar enough to be *roughly* compared on wing loading alone. They have similar layouts, (probably) ballpark similar Clmax and L/D curves, so any ratio between them will at least indicate the performance difference. With little difference between T/W, T/D, Wing loading and other criteria, difference will logically be small.

But comparing Typthoon vs F-35A with respect to wingloading? There are too much differences between lift performance for such comparison to be valid; IDK about F-35 or Typhoon’s exact data but lets talk about other extremes;

A delta like Mirage 2000 at 50% fuel has 221,4 kg/m2 at 50% fuel. A Su-27 has 315,9 kg/m2 at 35% fuel. 42% advantage. Mirage 2000 is known to have Clmax = 1.0; A Su-27 is known to have Clmax = 1.85;

Assuming both fly at 300 knots (154,3 m/s);
M2000 G load = (0,5 * 1,225 * 1 * 154,3^2) / (9,8184 * 221,4) = 6,68Gs, translates to 24,1 deg/s inst. turn rate.
Su-27 G load = (0,5 * 1,225 * 1,85 * 154,3^2) / (9,8184 * 315,9) = 8,66Gs, translates to 31,4 deg/s inst. turn rate.

For comparison however, we dont need such calculation; Ratio between Su-27 and M2k: 185% lift coefficent divided by 142% wing loading = 129,6% ITR performance. Considering wingloading alone in this case would have mislead us to think Su-27 had 70% ITR of Mirage 2k.

So for dissimilar aircraft, wingloading alone is meaningless. Its like measuring the length of a room, but not width, and then claim longer room is always bigger.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?135460-test-pilot-quot-F-35-can-t-dogfight-quot/page11

High AoA is not about pulling large G-loads. If all else were held equal a higher AoA would likely result in a faster turn, but everything else is not equal.

Imagine two F-35s, one with full fuel and weapons, the other essentially empty… the later might be operating at lower AoA and generating less lift, but still turning faster because it is lighter.

That true , but iam talking about AoA as potential lift coefficient here.