JSF or no JSF depends on Britain’s desire to be more than a second/third team auxiliary to the US war machine.

If Britain is satisfied with an RAF that flies airshow routines on sunny Saturdays, then there is no need for JSF.

If Britain wants the ability to destroy targets defended by S300s and S400s (who are protected by rings of SUs, TorM1s and Pantsyrs), then JSF is the best near-term capability.

A 4-ship of JSFs provides that capability:

• #1 & 2 and #3 & 4 form mutually supporting 2-ships and engage any DCA with AIM-120Ds from beyond DCA detection range
• #1 and #2 geolocates and targets the S400 through triangulation from beyond the S400’s detection range
• #2 salvos 8 SDB IIs at the S400
• #1 and #3 provide electronic attack against the Tor/Pantsyr/S400 to prevent intercept of the stealthy SDBs during terminal dive
• With 1m accuracy, only one of 8 SDB IIs is needed to F-kill the S400 control van
• #4 provides CAP against DCA
• With the S400 now F-killed, #3 lofts two GBU-32s into the target
• #1 and #2 harass the Tors/Pantsyrs with SDBs and electronic attacks to prevent the GBU-32s from being shot down, with the harassment taking place from a distance beyond the Tor/Pansyr reach.

This type of scenario is not possible with a small flight of standoff missile equipped Gen 4 jets because heavy laden Gen 4s will be detected and engaged by DCA/S400 at great range. Also, standoff missiles are not stealthy enough to get past the Tor/Pantsyr screen without jamming assistance. And jamming assistance will likely not be available with the Gen 4s trying to avoid DCA’s AAMs and SAMs. It would take a large flight of Gen 4s and enough expensive standoff missiles to saturate/overwhelm the DCA/SAMs to assure at least one standoff missile gets to the target.

The only thing that has even a slim chance of competing with the S-300PMU / S-400 systems with short-range SAMs covering them is an F-22, and throwing in 4+ gen enemy fighters into the mix makes it look pretty pale even for the Raptor if the enemy isn’t sleeping.

I stick to Russian sources about the AL-31/117S/41.
You have no idea, what a 14:1 TWR does mean.
Sticking to the most reliabe French standard.
The AL-31F has a 7:1 TWR.
The prototyp 117S has a 8:1 TWR.
The future AL-41F will have a 9:1 TWR and with a reduced life-time one of 10:1 at best.
“Overclocking” a fighter-engine on the bench-station is one thing, to operate it in a fighter is a different task. The 117S is just freed for prototyp use in the Su-35BM prototypes or Su-32. In the special regime it will produce 14,5 tons, when max AB is 14 tons of thrust. The Russians have lost a decade in engine-development in the 90s. 😉

They didn’t lose a thing. The Al-31 variants were developed in the 90s.

Very simple. 😀
You have to get 18 tons of thrust from an engine in the size and related weight to achieve a 14:1 TWR.
When the size and weight of that engine is similar to the AL-31, the AL-41 will reach a 10:1 TWR by French standard in the next decade.
With the technologies at hand and some usefull life-time in mind the limit is 12:1 TWR by French standard in the near future at best. 😉

3/4 of a meter length difference is pretty significant.

And your analysis has no factual basis whatsoever, merely what can be seen as baseless speculation.

You are free to claim what you want, when the reality does proof you wrong for decades. Everyone is free to buy Russian aviation technology, which is even cheaper than Western ones. That in mind all leading air-forces has to be equipped with Russian technology in the meanwhile and the Russians do have problems to keep pace with the demand of that. :diablo:

What proof? Lmao.

Fan boy and russophobe crap.

Many would believe China won some of its medals because it cheated. (i.e. under age girls) Regardless, I am not here to talk politics. Well, its getting late for me so I’ll be quick. The Flanker is large powerful, agile, and has range.
I would not disagree……………Yet, the F-15 has better BVR Weapons, Avionic, Radar, and pilot Training. Then you have to consider no weapon system fights by itself. So, in short if you look at the whole package. The F-15 is likely to win more times than not vs the Flanker. Either way I am sure you could find many on this site that would be happy to debate on the point of Flanker vs Eagle to great detail. (and much better than me) Really, the same could also be said for Hornet or Super Hornet vs the Flanker. In the real world 1 v 1 is extremely rare…………

What garbage is this? It’s been beaten to death a THOUSAND times here, the US arsenal in no real way is better than the Russian one for aviation purposes. For every purpose there is a weapon, and in the near future, I’d say Russia is going to have a clear lead in BVR A2A weapons.

Do we have any idea of the expected thrust of the AL-41??? I believe the 117S is making around 31,500 lbs……..per power plant.

117S = 32,000lbs

Al-41 expected to be 40,000lbs with 14:1 TWR.

Russia does use the accuracy international AWSM, so I think that’s right.