The F35 struggles to be on par with the F16, Gripen is quite a bit more nimble. Rafale and Eurofighter are one more step up the ladder. Gripen E will close the gap a bit, ie further outrunning the F16 and by implication also outrunning the F35.

we dont have the flight graph of Rafale , Eurofighter ,Gripen or F-35 yet so my point still stand

Typhoon, gripen and Rafale have much lower wing loading, that mean they will sustain turn better at altitude while F-35 ‘s high wing will help it turn better at low altitude, due to reduction in drag , high wing loading also often results in higher roll rate ( basically just like F-15 vs F-16)
=> so when dogfight, F-35 will be better at sea level whileTyphoon, gripen, Rafale will be better at altitude
another advantage of F-35 is that it carry alot more fuel, and have much better combat radius with internal fuel compared to Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale, thus F-35 may only need a fraction of its total fuel tank capacity to reach the range that Rafale, Typhoon, JAS – 39 may need full tank => in reality when fueled to same distance F-35 likely have better T/W => better acceleration

unless you have some flight manual that show otherwise , it not easy to design an aircraft that superior to another for the entire flight envelope
an example of this :

F-16 has been extensively used to train Typhoon pilots in WVR engagements. According to the Italian pilots, the F-16 matches the EF-2000 under 10,000 feet. But above FL100 the Typhoon becomes quite difficult to beat since its superior aerodynamics

————————————

How many of the delivered F35s are flying with the full avionics suite and cleared for the entire flight envelope? Not a single one?

The thing with delivering testbeds to clients is that they will be sitting with junk for a couple of years until the avionics and other fixes are finnished. The LRIP system serves a couple of purposes.
1 Excellent PR. They dont have to finnish the product before delivering it and thus they can “beat the deadline”. Everybody applauds.
2 They lock up customers money. Once you have payed hundreds of million $ for a piece of plastic that is no where near combat ready (and still needs fixes like redesigned tail section, several avionics upgrades etc…) it will be too costly to pull out.

yes but they made many F-35 and tested most part of it’s flight envelope and avionics suite while we still dont have any Gripen-NG ,it’s avionic havenot been tested either

When it comes to upgrades… The F35 has all avionics written in C++ and everything is compiled to a software block together with the flight controls. This was probably ok back in the 90’s when projects had fewer lines of code. Bogdan says software is the biggest reason for the delays, and this is on a fighter that up to last year melted its own tail stabilizers (at least the skin) when using afterburner, that had premature cracks in the bulkheads and so on. I think that says is all.

what coding language is Rafale , EF-2000, Gripen’s avionics written in ? and why are they superior to C++?

First of all, we dint know for sure.

we never know anything for sure about modern, top of the line weapon

Second of all, the fighters before the Eurocanards (Su27, F16, MiG 29 and so on) had RCS of around 5-15m�. (F16C was quite the improvement vs F16A)

So, from 10 to 0,1 is 100 times.
From 0,1 to 0,001 is 100 times.

Do you see something repeating itself? 😉

yes , fighter producer try to reduce aircraft RCS to improve survivability
F-16C RCS is around 1.2 m2 clean
Dassault’s claim that the Rafale’s RCS is 1/10th of the Mirage 2000 RCS => Rafale RCS is about 0.5- 0.3 m2 clean
EF-2000 was claimed to have RCS = 1/3 Rafale => around 0.1 m2 clean
According to Airforce’s Monthly magazine the Gripen’s RCS(with full A2A loadout) is 1/3 that of an F-16 => around 0.4 m2 with weapon
F-35 was declare to have RCS equal a golf ball => around 0.0014 m2 clean
but i rounded everything because that make calculation easier

If it all where that simple…
SA-6 where expected to have about 90% killrate in Yom Kippur 1973, but it ended up at 2%.

Speaking of SAMs and the S-400. It is specifically designed to handle stealth targets. And so is Pantsir S1 which always tags along to give S-400 a good SHORAD.

In the end, we need a war to actually settle this.

what i was trying to say with that assessment is that F-35 was designed to hide from really big and powerful ground radar ,it wouldnt be a big deal for it to hide from fighter radar
example :

most fighter’s radar will have really hard time to detect F-35, let alone tracking it at distance
take the Irbis-e ( most powerful fighter radar nowadays) for example :
it can detect target with RCS = 0.01 m2 from 90 km, so according to radar equation , it can detect target with RCS of 0.001 m2 (f-35)
from around 50 km, that is only detection range, tracking range where you get enough information for a missile launch ( range, speed, heading) is around 70% of detection range, , so now, the targeting distance again stealth fighter is only around 30 km, when you factor in jamming from APG-81, ALE-70, MALD-J, or even ground clutter then the distance where enemy can lock and attack the F-35 by radar easily shrink down to 10-15 km, that is well within lethal range of Aim-120 or Meteor
( IRST dont work well in bad weather and can be neutralise by flying in cloud)

——————————————–

No. All modern fighters have HMDS giving the same capabilities but without the headache.

DAS give many advantage compared to normal HMDS
1- give more accurate guide to HOBS missiles
2- give pilot warning and accurate location of enemy’s missiles or Flak
3- night dogfight ?
( it true that the system still have some bugs at the moment though )

Nope. DIRCM will come in the PAWS-2 suite f�r Gripen E to name one example.

actually PAWS-2 is just a missiles warning sensor that can be put on fighter or helicopter , connecting to aircraft it can detect missiles launch , give warning and deployed countermeasure ( chaff , flare , DIRCM ) , however like i said it cant deploy DIRCM if the aircraft itself dont have laser turret , so Gripen-E dont have DIRCM , neither are EF-2000 or Rafale
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elisra-to-boost-gripen-missile-warning-suite-393897/
http://defense-update.com/products/p/paws.htm

repeating the same crap over without any evidence or explanation

Ok what ever

Do you have anything to actually contribute? Your lack of ability to think beyond “F-35 is the bestest” is dreadfully boring.

look at yourself, you are the one without anything to contribute apart from personal attack and opinion that is not actually backed up by anything

It is upon you to demonstrate why the F-35 having STOVL, stealth and supersonic capability is such a winning combination. You’ve failed to do so.

no!
you asked me what revolutionary about the F-35 and i have answered it : it the only stealth fighter that can take off from a carrier, the only supersonic STOVL supersonic stealth fighter

the second question is why F-35 more effective than other 4.5 gen fighter : and i have answered it as well: LO allows better exchange ratio due to advantage of first look, first shot, it allow more tactics, Low RCS also make F-35 benefit more from support such as jamming
By contrast, when carry bomb, missiles, external fuel tank, targeting pod, there isn’t significant difference between the kinetic performance of Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon compared to 4 gen fighter like F-15,F-16 or Su-27 ( same for RCS)

I suspect rather strongly that you have never had responsibility for much of anything thus it is easy for you to make such flippant claims and not bear the consequences.

again you resort to personal attack, and stop pretending like you are actually smarter than people, because you aren’t,

Why do the Marines need a STOVL, supersonic, stealth platform to perform ground support missions?
STOVL on it’s own, yes i can see that.
Supersonic and stealth together, yes good utility.
All three together? In what situation could STOVL, stealth and supersonic all be of utility?
Please note i am are talking of the US Marines and their doctrine here. The RN or other small niche operators are not relevant.

If you can use STOVL to be close to the front line the chances that the opposition have kit that makes stealth and supersonic capability necessary are low to zero. So why do you need them?

If you need stealth and supersonic capability the likelihood is the opposition have kit that makes STOVL capability pointless, so why is it needed?

If you need to perform missions that require stealth and supersonic capability due to the oppositions capability a CVN is going to be there so those missions can be undertaken by the aircraft on the CVN.

QED: The aircraft on the LHA/LHD do not need to be STOVL, stealth and supersonic.

Stealth = much less vulnerable to SAM, fighter, AWACs
supersonic = go to the combat field faster or can run away faster, sometimes can be used to increase range of weapons such as bombs or missiles
STOVL = can take off from small carrier or small air field when the the big one have been destroyed by enemy’s cruise missiles
=> what if enemy are attacking your ground unit, you need to get there as fast as possible to support them, but long run way air field are not available due to damage from bomb or cruise missiles, and enemy also have SAM cover?

also buying 1 fighter that is Stealth, supersonic and can do STOVL is cheaper than buying 1 stealth aircraft , 1 supersonic fighter and 1 STOVL aircraft
1 F-35B is cheaper than 1 F-16+ 1 F-117 +1 AV-8B

.
How exactly is flying a “stealth” jet off a carrier revolutionary? Ditto for a STOVL “stealth” jet?

it never been done before, and until now F-35 is still the only stealth fighter that can take off from a carrier

How exactly is the rcs reduction level of the F35 cost effective compared to other less costly methods of achieving a similar outcome?

.
are you trying to claim Rafale or Typhoon some how have same RCS as F-35?

To finish, as with all your other “responses,” you are guessing when you waffle about the electronic warfare systems. The Europeans have for many years invested in these systems in contrast to the US who have focused their efforts on rcs and shaped “stealth.” Please note I’m in no way using that simple fact as absolute evidence that the Europeans ecm systems are “better” than the US’s, merely offering it for consideration alongside your assumption that the US is best.

what i was trying to say is: F-35’s jammer will be much more effective than Typhoon, gripen or Rafale jammer because of this :

and Btw USA do spend alot on ECM tech too, Ex : alq-99, NGJ, jamming by AESA radar

Yet again an F35 supporter creates a strawman and proceeds to attack it!
Who exactly has ever claimed the Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen brought anything revolutionary?
(Do you understand the meaning of revolutionary rversus evolutionary? Ah hang on you are probably an evolution denier aren’t you!)

ok if you want to talk about revolutionary , F-35C is the first stealth fighter that can take off and land on an carrier , F-35B is the first stealth short take off , vertical landing fighter
by contrast there isnt anything revolutionary about Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen

1) Are you intimately familiar with the rcs level of the F35, how about from the side or rear?

significantly better than 4 or 4.5 gen fighter

To what extent does the 80/20 rule play in rcs reduction? Is the level of F35 frontal rcs really cost effective in comparison to lower level of rcs reduction on other platforms?

yes level of F35 RCS reducetion is very cost effective compare to other fighter, in fact , i doubt that it really worth the effort to reduce the RCS on Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen since they all carry fuel tank , missiles ,pylon , bomb , targeting pod externally

2) Do you like Swedes? Oh and this is interesting reading for fans of MADL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunction_Advanced_Data_Link, besides which it isn’t a single platform system

do Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen have similar thing ?

3) Yes rcs reduction will absolutely aid jamming. I do like the caveat you slip in there that the jamming systems have to be the same for the F35 to have the advantage. Simple question, what if they are not?

yes , what if the jamming systems on F-35 is significantly better than the one on Su-35 , Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen ? ( very likely consider the amount of money spend on the program )
even if the revert are true , the jamming system on Su-35 Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen need to be many times more powerful to reach the effectiveness level of F-35’s jammer

reminds me of some fighter named F-4 that came out without a gun…

bah, never mind… it’s not for nothing that there’s a saying that the history is an endless repetition…

F-35 is actually not that bad, even in wvr gun fight
compare with F-15E, F-16
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735&sid=1a41dc9d4f1ec572dc19e94c77a3c094
acceleration compare with 4 gen fighter

Normally I am the one who claims F-35 is a flying brick; but not in this case: Here is my version of the 30k feet acceleration graph:

Side notes:
F-16 blk50 (2xAIM-120s or AIM-9s), data is taken from flight manual; but linearly interpolated for required weight and mach number.
F-15E PW229 (4xAIM-7s), data is taken from flight manual acceleration graph; but linearly interpolated for required altitude.
F-18C (2xAIM-7 2xAIM-9) and F-18E (AIM-120, 2x AIM-9) data is directly taken flight manual.
F-5E data is taken from flight manual, interpolated for required altitude.
Mig-29 (2xR-60+4 pylons): acceleration values deviated from excess power graphs as the manual suggests.
Su-27 (2xR-73): acceleration values deviated from excess power graphs same way MiG-29 manual suggests.
Mig-23ML (2xR-23): acceleration taken from manual, interpolated for altitude.

F-22 and F-35, are estimates based on static T/W, intake configuration, my own estimates about drag, etc etc. No sources, its ok to ignore them both.

Altitude is 30k feet; all aircraft carry 50% fuel plus the mentioned payloads.

An F-35 can carry 6 JSOW (2 internal).

In general the F-35 has a substantially greater heavy load capability than the Rafale. An F-35 can carry 6 x 2,000lb JDAM, 6 x JSOW, or 6 x JSM, along with 18,000lbs of fuel, a targeting pod, and 4

actually the maximum number would be 10, not 6
F-35 can use BRU-69/A rack ( basically the same as BRU-55 on F-18 and BRU-57 on F-16) that allow it to carry two 1000 lbs smart weapon ( such as JDAM, JSOW.. etc) on each weapon station

sound interesting, may be they have newer engine?