agreed
the F-35 isn’t designed to be an air supremacy aircraft, yet even I’ll admit that it’ll defeat any older fighter jet in long range combat. not because it has speed or TVC, but becasue it has stealth and thus likely first strike capability
even in dogfighting an F-35 can detect and engage at any angle, even if it doesn’t turn that good it’s still extremely dangerous

for the same reason a stealthy UCAV will be a killer in air combat, because it can sneak up on an enemy, shoot its missiles (all you need is a sensor asset that sends the target location and the kill order, the UCAV doesn’t even need to send any signals itself) and sneak off again, avoiding all and any retaliation (and even then, I’d happily risk a cheap UCAV or two to take out a T-50. the psychological threat alone will be worth it)
or in dogfighting a number of UCAVs can act as a swarm, using team tactics no human can hope to match. when a UCAV moves to the left you think it’s trying to dodge you, when in fact it’s drawing you into the line of fire of an another UCAV, who’s doing the same thing with another UCAV… and individual UCAVs can sacrifice themselves without second thought if it’s for the greater good, not always a viable tactic with manned aircraft. not to mention UCAVs can pull sustained G’s without blacking out

so UCAVs in a dogfight is like a human playing chess against a computer. you have some really good human players that can beat computers, but then Deep Blue comes along and suddenly goes Schwarzenegger on any human’s ass
and on top of that the UCAV can use tactics and moves a human cannot. and with time he always gets better, while humans do not (they actually get worse after a while). good luck with that

the problem with those advanced manned jets is that you’re building the best possible prop fighter, in a world that’s started developing jet fighters
or the best possible crossbow, when the enemy starts using firearms
I’m not saying they won’t be great fighters/crossbows, I’m just pointing out that technology tends to punish those that don’t adapt, especially in military conflicts

let’s just say that if I was sent to Vietnam in the 1960’s, and had the choice between
– the brand new but untested M-16 (with every General’s and the contracter’s guarantee that it works as promised)
– or an outdated M1 Garand
I’ll take the Garand thank you, I know it works, and that those generals and contracter care more about shares and careers than if I get killed or not

lol, please, Boeing proved back in 2005 that UCAVs can autonomously and with little or no human intervention find and attack targets, even unplanned ones
shortly after, the J-UCAS program was cancelled (and probably the USAF started work on the RQ-170)
if there are no capable UCAVs yet, it’s not because the technology isn’t there, but because the military refuses to develop it, or more likely has classified it (BAe is very hush hush about its Mantis/Taranis technology)

I quoted this article on Aviationweek from a year ago
http://aviationweek.com/awin/new-gripen-aims-low-cost-high-capability
it’s on converted Gripen C’s, but I figure it should be accurate

if you have more accurate, recent links, please share

excuse me if I don’t take LMT’s word on it when they say the F-35 will cost x in x years when taking into account x inflation
for example Japan could end up paying a lot more, because of strong recent inflation
so I prefer to look at known costs, rather than projections
again, if you have a link to guaranteed and signed flyaway prices, please share

Sanem, your whole post reads like a list of suppositions, wishful thoughts, and outright exaggerations:

1. The F-35 was not designed for air combat? do tell.
2. LoL right back at you on the UCAV comment. There is a HUGE difference between using a UCAV to strike a fixed target with a GPS- guided bomb, or using a drone with live video to strike a convoy. None of these tasks remotely resemble the level of software sophistication or AI needed to make an autonomous air to air unmanned vehicle. If you don’t believe me, start reading the recent comments from the USAF regarding sixth generation fighter ideas.
3. Your quote on the SAAB Gripen is wrong, the price was a REBUILD as you stated. If you want the quotes go to the Gripen Thread:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116825-Saab-Gripen-amp-Gripen-NG-thread-3&p=2226714#post2226714

GOPRO F-16 VS. F-15:

http://theaviationist.com/2015/06/03/f-15-vs-f-16-frisian-flag/

AETD engine record, dimensions checked for F-35 fit:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/ge-sets-aetd-record/

the ability to launch first boils down to launch parameters,
and the bomber with the lesser performance will reach these parameters later than a fighter with the better performance,
launch parameters depend both on launcher and target performance,
so the lesser performer is hamstrung both as a shooter and as a target,
it need to be closer to the opponent at launch to reach similar Pk,
while at the same time be further away as a target to have similar evasion chance

Nonsense on two points:
F-35 is not a bomber no matter how many times u repeat it. It’s a strike fighter, with performance in line with aircraft of a comparable role.

Two, launch parameters have not been the decisive nor the limiting factor. SA and ID/IFF have been the critical factors in missile combat to date. Hence why the F-35 and others have put such an emphasis on Combat ID, situational awareness, and fusion of sensors. There is still a decisive advantage to be gained in sensor agility, not so with platform agility which has largely plateaued due to human limits.

another aspect is UCAVs: Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon will likely offer full UCAV integration by 2021 or shortly after with the nEuron/Taranis offspring
so they’ll be selling a package system, with a cost and capability that the F-35 can never match
why risk a $50-$150 million manned jet to shoot missiles at a SAM that will shoot them down point blank anyway
when you can instead send an expendable $25 million stealthy UCAV that can just fly overhead and saturate bomb it (difficult to point defend against bombs coming straight from above)
the USAF doesn’t even have a UCAV program (as this would question the need for the F-35), and I doubt they’ll export the X-47b derivative

Think your timeline on UCAV integration is hopelessly optimistic as well as the idea that a UCAV would somehow be able to bomb ‘Straight from above” yet any LO fighter with standoff range weapons like the SDB would just be shot down. That’s a bit simplistic and frankly not what experiences have shown.
Lastly, the idea of a “expendable $25 million stealthy UCAV”: any UCAV developed from the nEuron/Taranis, or X-47b would likely cost north of 25 million and I doubt the air force that uses them would view those as “expendable”.

I doubt greatly that anyone drafting the ATF requirement in 1986 would have aimed at sub-117 RCS numbers. It would have been crazy to do that while pushing for supercruise, agility/maneuverability and tactical R&M.
.

True, that would account for the significant changes post 1986 to the Lockheed ATF design, and the significant changes from the YF-22 to production. Saw the darn thing sitting outside on a pole upside down many times in my teenage years as they tested the RCS and revised the design.

Still it is not anymore like during the first gulf war, it would no more possible now to send an aircraft against a modern, updated air defense network by stealth alone.

They didn’t do it then, either…

Just to clarify are you referring to the ALONE part? Or the modern air defenses part?

For those interested, the pictures of the F-35A damaged in the engine fire are up roughly a year after. The report has been released:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/we-finally-get-our-first-look-at-the-barbecued-f-35-nea-1709394767

Aircraft is a write-off, will be used for parts.

Edit- I see B-I-O had posted pic on other page. For those interested there are several views of damaged aircraft in above link