F-35 is a bomb truck, not a fighter.

I don’t take the description of being a “bomb truck” as a pejorative. Bomb trucks are good, particularly when said bomb truck surprises you with a missile in your face at BVR.

The only reason for a fighter to be bigger is to have more power and more space for bigger radars. also with more power you can throw a missile farther.
There is a reason for F-15s big nose and the raptors insane, Tw ratio The F-14 was basically a fighter built around a missile and a radar.
so you have

1. The ability to have a bigger radar than the next guy so you have look down and fire from farther out. If your Radar cant see me but I can see you then we are still back at square one.

2. The energy advantage to throw the missile farther and recover from turns faster.

3. The ability to hang more stuff.

So not only is it about being hard to see its also about having enough big guns so that even if you see me I can fire out of your detection range.

4. More internal fuel

Cancel Eurofighters to by more F-35’s? I very much doubt it.

What happened when the Yanks said dogfighting was over back in the Vietnam era? They got their arses handed to them on a plate & soon ate their words, painful lesson and I can’t believe they still think its over. (If they actualy did say it that is.)

There’s more to the Vietnam story – restrictive ROE’s played a big part in outcomes. Trying to dogfight with a bomber interceptor (F-4) isn’t easy – the F-8 fared better. Missile technology wasn’t quite there yet – AIM-7’s were originally designed to engage bombers – not maneuvering targets like MiG-19’s and -21’s. And AIM-9’s of the time had a very narrow FOV/R, therefore easy to break lock with a hard turn. A gun was still necessary.

A-A missiles of the current generation are much better. While a gun continues to prove it’s worth in A-G, is it still relevant in the A-A arena, and worth it’s installed weight? The Navy pods it in their F-35, adding it when appropriate.

While the F-35 is nominally a multirole aircraft, it seems to be weighted towards the A-G mission, while maintaining a potent BVR missile slinging capability and acceptable maneuverability. Air superiority / IPB will be handled by the F-22A – F/A-18E/F’s in US service. Allied users may not be able to afford to buy a hi-low mix – maybe that’s what Italy decided – so it opts for a multirole aircraft that more stealthy – possibility reflecting a belief that they are more likely going to be in A-G vs. A-A missions?

I’ve done it. There is NO evidence other than the word of a Serbian air defence battery commander that the F-117 in question was detected, tracked, acquired and shot down by a radar guided missile system.

There is evidence of an F-117 being shot down. There is the word of a battery commander that his unit acquired, tracked and shot the “stealth” aircraft down.

It is an equally plausible proposition to claim the AAA that other Serbian air defence units were firing in that area that night, shot down the F-117. There is even evidence that the F-117 pilots reported the AAA in their area during their radio chatter.

There is also irrefutable evidence that the Serbian air defence missile battery commander was not able to replicate his alleged feat for the remainder of the conflict, even that night, despite the F-117 that did get show down, flying in a 4 ship flight with 3x other F-117’s.

Personally, there are more than a few doubts over his claims. At best, he got lucky that night and no other. At worst, he is taking credit for something he never achieved.

I will gently suggest that you look further. It’s up to you about what and who you want to believe. The broader questions are can a stealth aircraft be tracked and successfully engaged, and is EA/EW support necessary for a VLO strike mission in defended territory? Yes and yes.