Most export F-16 performing SEAD rely exclusively on HARM as an autonomous sensor.

Not they don’t, HARM needs a GPS/INS cue prior to launch.

F-16s survived in 1990s conflicts with the support of SEAD, DEAD and Prowlers. So using that to ASSUME (that word again) that the simulated threats were top of the line is unsound.

So is ASSUMING that ALQ-184 matches anything else just because it is new and American.

Not always. And the on-board jamming equipment back in the 1990s was old-hat. They have a heck of a lot of experience with SEAD and probably have the most familiarity with hostile systems, so it’s not really that bad of an assumption.

Also of note is that F-16s back in the 1990s didn’t have AARGM (HARM-E), which massively increases DEAD capability and is something that neither the Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen have to the same level right now. So basically in the latest F-16 you have a system that can pinpoint hostile radar locations and kill them from 150km away, regardless of whether they shutdown or not, yet some were still lost in this test. You do the maths.

How about Typhoon, lukos/BMD ? 🙂

Surely the fact the UK is buying the F-35 as well as investing in Taranis answers that question?

You also have to keep in mind that not all F-16 are equipped similarily, very far from it, even if they have common update programs.
US F-16 generally lack when it comes to threat detection and alert. Export F-16 usually do better (interferometers on Belgian F-16AM’s from Dassault ESD/Thales & UAE F-16Es from Northrop, MWS installed on most european MLU, etc.).

They likely used the more modern ones in such a test.

So let’s get the argument straight. Against an unspecified threat with unspecified RoEs, F-35s proved more survivable than 40-year-old designs with unspecified self-protection systems. We know no more than that.

Nobody respectable has ever argued that this could not happen, either. The issue is the relative capability of the F-35 versus contemporary aircraft and its relative survivability against advanced threats.

Did you not read hopsalot’s post? They just updated the jammer, so it’s the most up-to-date jammer out there. Those 40 year-old designs also have modern avionics in general, like AESA/SAR, in the case of the F-16. And as for the A-10, not so long ago people were saying it was better.

Given that the F-16 has proven survivable against legacy threats in live combat, I don’t think it’s a huge leap of logic to assume the threats in the test were advanced since the F-16 suffered simulated losses.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I mentioned “evidence” not “fanboy opinions”. Besides, USAF F-16s are not particularly modern or well equipped.

On further checking the A-10 has indeed had the rather ancient AAR-47 installed. And how new/capable is any pod on the USAF F-16 fleet?

What exactly was your opinion based on? The Rafale is not a VLO aircraft, therefore it would suffer the same issues as an F-16.

Not much older than Rafale’s Spectra suite and combat proven in Desert Storm and Operation Allied Force.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANALQ131/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/alq184/

The A-10 is not a fighter and doesn’t even have MAWS, I believe.

Yes it does.

Report 2 from Paris Airshow

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/paris-air-show/2015/06/15/paris-joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-block-buy-multiyear-purchase/71268726/

JSF Block Buy Could Reach 500 Fighters

PARIS — Countries signing up to buy the joint strike fighter have all said they are interested in a block buy that could see commitments to purchase 500 of the aircraft, a Lockheed Martin official said Monday.