It seems me that this thread have derailed great time in meantime I was away.
Above all it became, thanks to someone to the usual “Us against you”.between RussiaSTRONK-ist and That’s’Murica-ist involving also persons that were until now reasoning in a rational way.
So let’me reply just to the posts that kept themselves on the old track.

On this a particular mention to XB-70 #43 post that explain how state-ot-the-art avionics of F-35 with its emphasis on sensor- and data-fusion can be a real help in many scenarios involving both A2A than A2G.
Above all because he IMHO correctly point how this capability is not exclusive to it but can involve all planes of the same gen (and I would add also other planes actually in production/deep modernization process).

I would put a less emphasis on internal carrying of weapons, planes like Mig-31 or Typhoon carry their missiles in semi conformal recesses and also in other planes designed for aerial combat there is always been the research of the least possible impact of weaponry to general performances, so an advantage exist but is not so decisive.

.

.

[USER=”1724″]djcross[/USER]
IMHO the intercept scenario requisites were well written and show how such missions have to be planned and carried out, not looking at abstract performances like it was a F1 race but time needed to get at a certain distance, at a certain quote in a certain asset.
Quite surprised that they have cancelled it, taking off in AB is just a standard procedure for such missions… in any case if true, another of the many features/requisites that they have sacrificed to the altar of “all around stealth”

@halloweene

So, please, if you have let’s publish them.

[USER=”40269″]FBW[/USER]

Thank for the well argumented reply.
Well 1,76 mach is still superior than F-35 max velocity.
I agree you about most of thing you said, dim (i would say realistic ) view on supercruise.
Just two things, Mig-31 was not designed with only high mach, high flight on mind, compared to Mig-25 it sports an high ( relatively to military standards, obviously) bypass turbofans instead of turbojets and a lot of other details were changed in order of being able to cope with low flying cruise missiles .
Given that such weapons are quite slow the possibility to engage them at a lower quote and speed was contemplated in the design but even in this case the Mig-31 would have started to approach them as high and fast as possible to slow down later.

The other, allow me to repeat myself in hopefully a clearer form: supersonic drop tanks were put on interceptor/fighter planes in QRA not to increase range in cruise mode but to allow performing initial take off/climbing/transonic pass in full AB without wasting the internal fuel, relative drop on performance due to increased drag was considered more than balanced by such a possibility.
Obviously, once the plane would have reached such a speed were the tank’s drag would have impaired acceleration, the tanks would have been dropped.

[USER=”71228″]garryA[/USER]
Thank to you also, good posts overall but in this case I have to dissent:

Well to be fair that also faster than Eurofighter, Gripen NG, Rafale but they are still used in interception role.

At cost to be pedantic,comparison was between the max AB speed of the F-35 with the maximum supercruise speed of F-22,, so almost in case of the Typhoon and Gripen the same didn’t apply.
Hence also the referral to the MIG-31 that have no supercruise at all but can travel for a longer distance at an higher speed than even an F-22 in supercruise, just to show there is more than one way to skin a cat (yet the 720 km at M.2,32 is not correct, that is the range for 2.03M).

That to show LMFS not necessary have low missile load, because it don’t have to be in stealth configuration all the time, and of course, if you carry more missiles, your aircraft will be draggier that goes for all aircraft and F-35 is no exception, but there are intercept mission where you might want to trade speed for the number of missiles, for example: if your aircraft carrier is being attacked from extended range by cruise missiles

And the mine’s own was to remind you that similar high load arrangements, highly debatable also when it comes to A2G missions make absolutely no sense at all in an A2A one, in any of such missions, so let’s imagine on an interceptor that as a general norm took off with a very limited payload in order to reach its own mission quote and speed a.s.a.p.

Because it seems me that the thing that somewhat is missing there is a certain dose of historical memory: on how such missions were performed, what were the real performances requested to an interceptors (of better said to the different forms such formula has took as time go by) compared to a standard fighter, on how and why a tail-on engagement was always the preferred form of approaching bandits, of how A2S missiles work and so on…

F-35 was not designed with interception missions as a requisite given that both Usaf than the major partners involved i.e. Italy and Uk already have (or thought to have) this role covered respectively by F-22 and Typhoon.
And yes F-35 is not just a good all rounder: it is an excellent A2G plane having capablity in this role akin to past generations specialized heavy strike planes like Su-24, F-111 or Tornado being in the same time capable of act as a true multirole fighter.
Interception and air superiority roles are a completely different scenario and would require a whole different plane layout
F-35 has an excellent engine and it is said to have a superb subsonic acceleration so it would not be hapless also in those arena but it is definitively its own playground.

I didn’t think that switching from Pesa to Aesa would be so simply like just changing a simple antenna: former has a separate radio wave source while the latter has integrated TRMs.Disposition and weight imbalance are very different.
Passing from a conventional scanning rdar to Pesa, could involve just swapping an antenna but ther is the whole disposition of components to change.