Several good reasons..

1. the Pk of your BVR missiles is anyone’s guess

the same go to any weapons including cannon

2. in a jammed environment, it might get even much lower

missiles course can be corrected through datalink, future BVR missiles will also have AESA seeker make them extremely resistance to deception jamming ( http://m.aviationweek.com/awin-only/japan-britain-collaborate-meteor-guidance ), then there will also be other form of guidance such as IIR

3. against a RCS-reduced opponent, you might not be even able to lock on at BVR ranges and need to go WVR

yes again another VLO aircraft may be, but even in WVR doesn’t necessarily mean traditional dogfight

4. ID is still a problem, normally you have to get much closer than the nominal range of your BVR weapons

there are many other ways to ID target other than visual such as ISAR, NCTR mode of radar

5. with the F-35, you only have four internal missiles.. don’t be surprised to have them depleted on a single (reasonably advanced) target

F-35 will be able to carry 6 AIM-120 after block 5, and in future there also something like CUDA that increased A2A missiles load to
12

6. once close-in, you cannot disengage at will bcs you’re slow.. you need to fight even if the odds are not in your favor

still no aircraft accelerate faster than a missiles

Aerolastic twisting of the mainplane is high. The X29 was a technology demonstrator built with composite materials to better withstand the twisting moment and keep the weight within limits..
Sweep forward would mean more weight and lower fatigue life.

didn’t they solve twisting problems with new material?

Also, RE: forward swept wings, there are IIRC super-sonic manoeuvrability issues. One of the reasons the S-37 was never developed further.

what was the issue

Anyone know why forward sweep wing aircraft never go into full production? , it sounds like they have so many advantages over normal sweep wing fighter

You’ve also undermined one of your earlier arguments. A report for the US Government is by definition not an “Official Report” of the entire operation representing all other nations, which you attempted to represent this document as. Whoops.

The rest of your post does a excellent job of exposing your bias!

a report for government is thousands times more official than any Wikipedia or blog source.
and if the Rafale did do SEAD mission, there is simply no reason for RAND to say it didn’t or ignore the event, it a government report, not a game ffs

Well I’m quoting Combat Aircraft directly. Obviously I haven’t conducted personal tests. They state the R-37M can intercept targets at Mach 6/25,000m/8g and the R-77-1 at 25,000m/12g. Mach 3.2 drones are shot down routinely during testing.

i know you get it from a book , but that doesn’t mean it isn’t BS
mach 6 is even faster than many ballistic missiles ( EX : Scud ), then the target also pull 8G , and fly at 25 km ( > 80K ft ) , there is nothing at the moment can even achieved that feat

A missile doesn’t have to worry about killing the crew. Look up how many g an AAM or SAM pulls.

it true that missiles doesnt have to worry about crew , at low altitude missiles fly much higher speed than aircraft , that will give missiles enough lift to counter the effect of small fin , however , at high altitude , the air is very thin so your missiles would be lucky to be even able to turn ( especially since SAM , AAM dont fly much faster than XB-70 while have much less wing area , if the XB-70 can only sustain 2-3 G , i really doubt that missiles can change direction )

Well….I have a bone to pick with that…

In those exercises VLO being the paramount asset and assuming 100% kill ratio by the amraams the non-VLO teams have no chance.

In reality some missiles would fail miserably and the RWR of the targets would alert them that a missile has locked on them giving some indication of direction of the threat.

I do believe the F-35 would be a quantum leap in SA ..it better be actually … But that can be retrofitted …

i dont think the USAF would be stupid enough to not simulate RWR and Jamming in their exercise,
and a VLO airframe cant be retrofitted.

A.

According to an article in Combat Aircraft, the MiG-31 is designed to intercept Mach 6 targets at up to 25,000m turning at up to 12g
http://www.uavglobal.com/tu-141-strizh/

i can accept that Mig-31 can intercept SR-71 but to say it can intercept something fly at mach 6, 25000 m and turning 12 G sound like BS propaganda to be honest

Remember too that at the 80,000 feet or so that the B-70 could fly, missiles probably couldnt stay with it in a turn. The B-70 had the advantage of compression lift, and a huge wing area. I suggest if a missile got close all the B_70 pilot would have to do is bank into a tight turn that the missile with its small fins couldnt match.

Further later on the B-70 could mount a fast attack, stand off and drop it cruise missiles, and return to base.

Iam not sure about AIM-54 and R-40 but something like AIM-120 have massive wingloading
AIM-120C have body diameter of 178 mm and total wing span of 445 mm ( 0.445 meters ) http://www.cat-uxo.com/#/aim-120-amraam-missile/4588084065
which mean the span of each fin is ( 445-178)/2 = 133.5 mm ( 0.133 meters )
This is AIM-120C fin

here is the fin size relative to the total body


The photos shows that Aim-120’s fin have trapezoid shape ,
For the rear fin : the big base length is around 2.5 times the height
the small base length is around 1.5 times the height
the height (wing span ) as we measured earlier is around 0.133 meters , so the big base is 0.3325 meters , small base is 0.1995 meters
Solve for area we get 0.035 m2 for each rear fin

For the frontal fin : the big base length is around 2 times the height
the small base length is around 0.5 times the height
the height is 0.133 meters so the big base is 0.266 meters , small base is 0.0665 meters
solve for area we get 0.022 m2 for each frontal fin

to sum up total fin area for AIM-120 is :
0.035*2 + 0.022*2 = 0.114 m2

AIM-120 total weight is 152 kg , The motor assembly weighs 70.3 kg and contains 49 kg of solid propellant. At burn out the AIM-120 will have weight of 103 kg
So the total wing loading of AIM-120 at burn out is 103/0.114 = 903 kg/m2

thinking about it something like MICA can AIM-9L would be much better than AIM-120 at high altitude ,massive fin , light weight ,they may have smaller rocket motor but air is thin at high altitude so that probably wouldnt be a problem