Mmm… LM being rather unopen about the problem: bulkhead cracks found in September 2013.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/151788/cracks-have-stopped-f_35b-tests-since-september.html

Edit How many aircraft that are already built, are currently being built are affected?

The F-35B is already into it’s 2nd lifetime of ground testing. This is why they are not worried about current flight ops as any bulkheads that need redesign/patch/fix will be addressed during a normal Block upgrade.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-10/ground-testing-uncovers-minor-cracks-in-marines-f-35-bulkheads

1-Offensive Counter Air/Sweep. Possible advantage to stealth provided that the weapons and RoE permit you to take advantage of any difference in detection/tracking range. On the other hand, JAS 39E has Meteor and better supersonic performance. (I can’t see how you would judge that JAS 39E “can’t do” this mission.) It’s also relevant that USAF does not regard the F-35 as an OCA platform (see Gen. Hostage’s recent comments.)

”Possible” advantage to stealth?? Have you even paid attention to the F-22 based Red Flag/ Northern Edge engagements?

Btw, OCA is an official capability of the F-35 and was announced as part of the Capability set at USMC IOC at Blk 2B.

Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is
equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct
CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and
Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and
capabilities.

2-Defensive Counter Air/Cruise Missile Defence. Stealth irrelevant. Advantage JAS 39E.

Let’s see… More & better sensors, better datalinks, and more missiles carried = Advantage F-35 (notice I did not say stealth).

5-Close Air Support. F-35 Block 3F can’t do this because it lacks competitive EO/IR (EOTS has limited field of regard, no HDTV) and Rover compatibility. Fixing issue means adding a pod and destroying stealth.

EOTS has a better FOR than a SniperXR to the rear and can see from the horizon to the horizon on the sides and front. What more do you need? It also has a higher zoom that SniperXR.

Btw, they have been doing CAS for DECADES with Rover so that is not a showstopper for CAS. They are getting Rover in Blk4.

6-Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. Block 3F has no capability, lacking suitable datalinks and sensors (HDTV/LOROP &c) and again, F-35 would need a pod.

Let’s look at the capabilities again… ESM 2nd to only teh F-22, High-Def SAR, EODAS, HMDS, MADL, SatComm, all stations prewired for NGJ, etc = Advantage F-35.

You seemed to completely ignore LO and how it will affect the battelspace, ignore that anywhere the F-35 requires a pod, so does the Gripen, and that there are many features inherent to the F-35 that will require either a pod or supporting aircraft for the Gripen.

From Dassault’s own page”

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/the-sheer-power-of-multisensor-data-fusion/

1 – “Multi-sensor data fusion”

Implementation of the “multi-sensor data fusion” into the RAFALE translates into accurate, reliable and strong tracks, uncluttered displays, reduced pilot workload, quicker pilot response, and eventually into increased situational awareness.

It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:

Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,

Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,

Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.

Notice that it’s mostly about decluttering tracks? This is inline with the 1st slide I showed.

It’s about the components talking to each other to develop a picture and not just combining (de-cluttering) their individual tracks into a single picture.

Let’s not forget the ability to share that data WITHOUT giving your own position away (directional datalinks) with 24 of your closes friends.

I found the full-size slides here
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/combat-systems-fusion-engine-for-the-f35

One of my favorite quotes from the sworn Australian testimony in March of 2012:

Air Vice Marshal Osley: And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that [B]it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range.

I am sure that the Rafale/Eurofigher are more than the 4th Gen fighter referenced, but I am very impressed by the statement that the F-35 uses 3X the number of techniques that the F-22 does.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/Fiche%20Rafale%20Eng.pdf

Read that again, the AESA antennas that it is talking about are the ESM antennas, not the MUCH larger AESA antenna of the radar unit (and it’s associated transmission & processing power).

btw, The pilot does not have to “turn his head” to attack a target, just select it in the threat list, confirm pK, and fire.

And again, Tragedac is primarily a technique for triangulation of known emitters.

This is NOT what we are talking about.

We are talking about two pieces of equipment who on their own cannot ID a target (type, track, etc) but through the close cooperation (this is why the fiber connection is required) can provide the appropriate ID/Track.

This CANNOT be done over Link16 (or even traditional hardware interconnects) due to bandwidth limitations.

Tragedac does not share “raw data”, but known contacts of in-determinant or inaccurate range.

The first one, called TRAGEDAC intends to extend passive localisation capabilities of the Rafale using cooperative technics. The idea is to correlate and synchronise OSF and Spectra data from different aircrafts through link 16 to compute passive tracks more accurately (especially the target range as it is currently the most difficult data to assess using passive sensors only)

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2013/06/rafale-developement-tragedac-and-lea.html

The whole spectrum of mission specific avionics are supposed to operate as a unified machine on both levels.

That’s what this “sensor fusion” malarky is all about.

It’s more complex than that. Fused avionics means that each piece of the puzzle (radar, ESM, IRST, etc) shares it’s final data solution (ie a plane track, a emitter location, etc).

The F-35’s APG-81 and ESM take this a step further by sharing and cross analyzing the raw data to come up with a unified solution. This allows pieces of a partial solution, that would likely be dismissed on their own, to be recognized for what it is and properly classified.