India's Interest in Lockheed F-35 Fighter

[Sridhar]

Desperation--U.S. offer of F-35 involvement to India Looking at the news and there is all the sudden there is a lot out there about India and the F-35. One word: desperation. As in desperation of the U.S. government and lockmart (one in the same) to keep the F-35 program alive by any means necessary. Eric Palmer blog: Desperation--U.S. offer of F-35 involvement to India

 

[sandeepdg]

well IAF now has little to do with the MRCA anymore, if they follow procedure, the EF and Rafale will exceed benchmark price most certainly and that will lead to the entire process going down the drain. It really aint over till the fat lady sings.

F-35 has a way of coming in through the back door. IAF sure wont be happy about the bids being so high but will end up ordering a couple of more squadrons of super mki till F-35 arrives. Its just a quantum leap in capability with a maximum of 3 year delay which can easily be compensated by bringing the su-30mki order book to 300, nice round figure. There is only little increase in capability between rafale/EF and MKI. PAKFA needs a stealthy companion and F-35 is the ideal single engine partner for that. Su-30mki will have the lca mk-2 in partnership and AMCA can go it all alone. Besides ordering the F-35 with whatever TOT comes along will add to our AMCA learning curve together with the PAKFA. AMCA can be the single go alone bird meant to dominate the skies. Best of both worlds.

EF and Rafale are just as expensive and arrive by early 2015 while the F-35 can easily arrive by 2017.

Man, are you on crack or what ?? You still dreaming about IAF buying the F-35 !!

IAF just concluded the deal and has shortlisted two contenders that it finds most suitable. Plus, do you know the parameters of the contract, which requires full TOT and domestic production of the planes as Adux also stated. F-35 doesn't fulfill that criteria. MMRCA was for conventional 4+ generation fighters. Not 5th generation stealth jets ! Why is that simple logic so difficult for you to understand ??

The quantum leap if for IAF will already come when they start inducting the FGFA. No way F-35 will arrive by 2017 even if remotely we consider that IN is buying it. Have you seen the delivery schedule ?? Have a look at this : http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8995.html

Please do not base your posts on simple wishful thinking ! Try backing up your logic with hard facts ! Is there any damn link you can provide where the IAF has ever stated they want the F-35 ? I don't think so, because they have and they never will.

 

[Immanuel]

F-35 cannot fulfill ToT and domestic production, therefore cannot replace current MMRCA candidates

Can't claim that, in a MRCA case, the RFP wont be changed, 60% TOT clause will still be in there. For such a large order local assembly is certainly possible. MRCA requirement could easily cross the 200 threshold. Having such a large order would certainly allow for local assembly. TOT will be granted till the point of non critical areas which is kinda the same TOT we're getting for the PAKFA. Besides FMS allows for more TOT as well.

Israel To Buy F-35s With Cockpit Mods | AVIATION WEEK

Israel, U.S. Strike F-35 Technology Deal | AVIATION WEEK

We could go for a Israel type version which should technically allow for more TOT.

 

[Adux]

India is looking at Transfer of Tech, Israel is modification of Tech mainly, Like it or not, India and Israel is not seen in the same platform by the US. What we ask for Tech transfer and production transfer is something they cant match, also on top of that we are one's who havent signed any of their agreements. We are asking for Production, Metallurgy, Quality Control, Composite, Avionics, Engine tech, Israel isnt asking for the same.

 

[Immanuel]

yes that goes well for a 4.5 gen MRCA but if F-35 were to be acquired, its going to be slightly different. Even Russia is not allowing for TOT on sensi avionics and engine tech for PAKFA. cant put the F-35 in the same bracket as the EF or Rafale. JSF is a 5th gen fighter and thus will have TOT which is most appropriate of its caliber.

 

[Adux]

yes that goes well for a 4.5 gen MRCA but if F-35 were to be acquired, its going to be slightly different. Even Russia is not allowing for TOT on sensi avionics and engine tech for PAKFA. cant put the F-35 in the same bracket as the EF or Rafale. JSF is a 5th gen fighter and thus will have TOT which is most appropriate of its caliber.

There is no comparison between the PAK-FA offer and JSF offer. Especially in the matters of Tech Transfers

Of all the fighter jets available, JSF will offer the least tech transfer, for the FGFA and MMRCA programs. Therefore it is unsuitable.

 

[weg]

cant put the F-35 in the same bracket as the EF or Rafale.

No you can't , the F-35 will be outperformed by both, especially the EF on A2A. But you won't find out for 15years and probably never as India can't afford the F-35.

 

[SPIEZ]

No you can't , the F-35 will be outperformed by both, especially the EF on A2A. But you won't find out for 15years and probably never as India can't afford the F-35.

India can't afford . India was from time to time asked to be a part of F35! Also they offered the option of an F35 at a lower price.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/inhttp://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories462.htm

..:: India Strategic ::.. Indian Navy: US offers F 35 to India as India-US Defence Cooperation grows

The F35 can't be put into the bracket of ET or Rafale because the later two are 4.5 generation fighters, while the F35 is 5th generation fighter.

They were designed for completely different roles when we will never the know the results of the comparison either.

 

[nrj]

No you can't , the F-35 will be outperformed by both, especially the EF on A2A. But you won't find out for 15years and probably never as India can't afford the F-35.

Thats a overstatement.

 

[p2prada]

No P2P - the Su-33 never could carry a full load of weapons. It could only carry half the fuel in it's tanks and had a severly limited range. It's simple math - the catapault assists the aircraft to take off with much larger load and thus makes it way more effective. For the FGFA, it will be even more important since you do not want to operate a expensive long-legged 5th generation fighter with half the fuel and bare minimum weapons from a ski-lift aircraft. For any useful purpose, the N-FGFA must be operated from a CATOBAR carrier.

The Su-33 is heavier than the PAKFA and has 60% less thrust. The Mig-29k's thrust increased by 2 tons and it started to take off from carriers at full fuel and armaments. The PAKFA will be lighter and has an increased thrust by 11 tons in the final version. Why won't it take off at MTOW? Unlike the Su-33 the PAKFA is meant to take off at MTOW from 400m, an emergency thrust will get it off the deck with the internal weapons bays packed.

The only reason STOBAR is useless is because it cannot throw a Hawkeye or equivalent off the deck.

No the Russians have not done it. They have refused to do it for the T-90S time and again, which is why the MoD wanted to develop an independant platform for the Arjun and Karan MBTs. What the Russian want to give is knocked down kits shipped to India that are then assembled into a Tank. After much haggling what India got was a single manufacturing process that Indian defense factories operate like a parrot with no chance of modification or actual knowledge transfer beyond the obvious manufacturing protocol. That is ToT in name only.

The complete T-90 ToT was never negotiated for when the first contract was signed. We signed only for 300 odd tanks, why will anybody give ToT for that. Once the 1000 tank order was made, that's when ToT was negotiated. The Armour ToT was also never negotiated for. Don't fall for crap news from our journalists. Tank technology is not easy to get ToT when you cannot negotiate for it. The gun ToT was negotiated only in 2005 and ToT came in 2008. Is that not enough?

You are comparing apples and oranges. When the MKI was first made, it was better than the best even for Russia. They provided full ToT including how to make single crystal blades. According to HAL's director the full foreground IP rights has been signed with Russia in a 50-50 partnership for PAKFA. Full ToT will come. Simply because ToT for T-90 was not negotiated properly, we are jumping to conclusions on other projects. You are in the R&D industry, so you should know better. The Brahmos propulsion system ToT is also going to come soon too.

It will be equivalent to buying raw materials that come as pre-made and pre-cut peices of stell that you can assemble but have no idea how the steel is made or how the engine is designed.

None of the ToT for metallurgy, steel production, design, eetc were transferred. DRDO is doing it's "best" to reinvent the wheel.

You are wrong at both counts. Without access to metallurgy and steel production that went into the MKI, we cannot simply reinvent the wheel for these aspects. Without a blueprint we cannot make the AL-31 from scratch. China has been attempting the same since decades, so tell me where are they? They have a superior industry to ours and why is it that this is difficult for them? There are no two ways about it. If you want to make the MKI in India with your own raw materials, then you will need the entire gamut of their capabilities in your hands.

DRDO is reinventing the wheel for LCA, not MKI. MKI was done by transfer of know how and training from Russia while we transferred the big bucks.

Prada,

Catapult is not only about sorties, but rather about range and payload. Sortie rate reduces on a catapult. Which is why the US has 4 catapults on a Carrier.

No. If you want aircraft to fly off at MTOW, then only one aircraft can take off at a time from STOBAR because they need a larger deck space. CATOBAR quicker launches while using a smaller deck space.

The Charles de Gaulle is a carrier as big as Gorky or Vikrant and has 2 catapults. The CdG can launch 1 aircraft at MTOW every 30 seconds to a minute. But Gorky cannot do the same when launching aircraft at MTOW.

The debate between STOBAR and CATOBAR never ends, but what's acceptable is heavier aircraft like Hawkeye can only work on CATOBAR. IN gave up on a deck based AEW&C due to this limitation. Earlier the Navy was interested on procuring 6 E-2Ds for Gorky and Vikrant.

Note that when I say MTOW, I mean full fuel load and a weapons load equal to 4 500Kg bombs and 2 air to air missiles. It is just easy to say MTOW than explain all that every time.

 

[p2prada]

There's just no official reaction from IN at all. IMHO, even 50 F-35s for the Navy will be more than enough.

IN has already sent RFI to LM for F-35. Earlier reports stated it is meant for F-35B, but now it is not clear because RFPs haven't been sent yet.

 

[p2prada]

I wonder why the sudden desperation from Pentagon? Are they still pining for the MMRCA contract? They had 4 years to work on it and they choose the last week? or are they looking at the 100 fighter Naval-MMRCA contest that's coming up? Maybe they feel that if the Rafale is chosen for MMRCA then the M-Rafale will get the N-MMRCA too.
On the other hand if the EF gets MMRCA then the f-35 has much more chance for N-MMRCA. Maybe LM should stand behind EADS and help push the EF ...

Not really. Even if the bids open today and even considering one of the contenders is chosen, contract signing will still take a few months because negotiations are yet to begin. Sometimes the contract may fall through because of some problems and the entire thing may start anew. That's the reason why Saab is still hanging back and LM is standing around with the F-35 offer.

 

[Param]

You are wrong at both counts. Without access to metallurgy and steel production that went into the MKI, we cannot simply reinvent the wheel for these aspects. Without a blueprint we cannot make the AL-31 from scratch. China has been attempting the same since decades, so tell me where are they? They have a superior industry to ours and why is it that this is difficult for them? There are no two ways about it. If you want to make the MKI in India with your own raw materials, then you will need the entire gamut of their capabilities in your hands.

.

So is the latest HAL produced MKI completely made in India without any stuff being imported in kits? Particularly are the engine parts built from scratch and not assembled in India?

 

[Adux]

No. If you want aircraft to fly off at MTOW, then only one aircraft can take off at a time from STOBAR because they need a larger deck space. CATOBAR quicker launches while using a smaller deck space.

The Charles de Gaulle is a carrier as big as Gorky or Vikrant and has 2 catapults. The CdG can launch 1 aircraft at MTOW every 30 seconds to a minute. But Gorky cannot do the same when launching aircraft at MTOW.

The debate between STOBAR and CATOBAR never ends, but what's acceptable is heavier aircraft like Hawkeye can only work on CATOBAR. IN gave up on a deck based AEW&C due to this limitation. Earlier the Navy was interested on procuring 6 E-2Ds for Gorky and Vikrant.

Note that when I say MTOW, I mean full fuel load and a weapons load equal to 4 500Kg bombs and 2 air to air missiles. It is just easy to say MTOW than explain all that every time.

I really dont understand you here at all?
Why would STOBAR aircrafts take more deck space than Catapult one;s?
Two aircrafts can be launched seconds apart in a CdG as well as Vikramditya
Multiple catapults are for redundancy
Catapults take a lot of under deck hanger space. Because of the machinery thats comes with it. Therefore reducing the number of aircraft carried
Catapults allow more fuel and arms on the aircraft in comparison to ski jump. Changing the aircraft from a Air Defense mode to a more Strike Aircraft
STOBAR has higher sortie rate because there is no 'breaking parts' in them.

 

[asianobserve]

The latest EMALS is bound to clear a large part of carriers normally reserved for steam catapults.

 

[ace009]

The Su-33 is heavier than the PAKFA and has 60% less thrust. The Mig-29k's thrust increased by 2 tons and it started to take off from carriers at full fuel and armaments. The PAKFA will be lighter and has an increased thrust by 11 tons in the final version. Why won't it take off at MTOW? Unlike the Su-33 the PAKFA is meant to take off at MTOW from 400m, an emergency thrust will get it off the deck with the internal weapons bays packed.

The only reason STOBAR is useless is because it cannot throw a Hawkeye or equivalent off the deck.


Note that when I say MTOW, I mean full fuel load and a weapons load equal to 4 500Kg bombs and 2 air to air missiles. It is just easy to say MTOW than explain all that every time.

No P2P - here's the deal ...

Specifications (Su-27PU/Su-30)

Data from KNAAPO Su-30MK page,[35] Sukhoi Su-30MK page,[36] Gordon and Davison.[37]

General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 21.935 m (72.97 ft)
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.2 ft)
Height: 6.36 m (20.85 ft)
Wing area: 62.0 m2 (667 ft2)
Empty weight: 17,700 kg (39,021 lb)
Loaded weight: 24,900 kg (54,900 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 34,500 kg (76,060 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × AL-31FL low-bypass turbofans
Dry thrust: 7,600 kgf (74.5 kN, 16,750 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 12,500 kgf (122.58 kN, 27,560 lbf) each

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 (2,120 km/h, 1,320 mph)
Range: 3,000 km (1,620 nmi) at altitude
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 230 m/s (45,275 ft/min)
Wing loading: 401 kg/m2 (82.3 lb/ft2)
Thrust/weight: 0.98

Armament

The Su-27PU had 8 hardpoints for its weapon load, whereas the Su-30MK's combat load is mounted on 12 hardpoints: 2 wingtip AAM launch rails, 3 pylons under each wing, 1 pylon under each engine nacelle, and 2 pylons in tandem in the "arch" between the engines. All versions can carry up to 8 tonnes of external stores.
Guns: 1 × GSh-30-1 gun (30 mm calibre, 150 rounds)
AAMs: 6 × R-27ER1 (AA-10C), 2 × R-27ET1 (AA-10D), 6 × R-73E (AA-11), 6 × R-77 RVV-AE (AA-12)
ASMs: 6 × Kh-31P/Kh-31A anti-radar missiles, 6 × Kh-29T/L laser guided missiles, 2 × Kh-59ME
Aerial bombs: 6 × KAB 500KR, 3 × KAB-1500KR, 8 × FAB-500T, 28 × OFAB-250-270, nuclear bombs


Specifications (Su-33)

Data from KnAAPO,[46] Sukhoi,[25][47] Airforce-technology.com,[48] Gordon and Davison,[49] Williams[50]

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 21.94 m (72 ft)
Wingspan: 14.70 m (48.25 ft)
Height: 5.93 m (19.5 ft)
Wing area: 62.0 m² (667 ft²)
Empty weight: 18,400 kg (40,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 29,940 kg (66,010 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 33,000 kg (72,752 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × AL-31F afterburning turbofans
Dry thrust: 74.5 kN (16,750 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 125.5 kN (28,214 lbf) each
Wingspan, wings folded: 7.40 m (24.25 ft)

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.17 (2,300 km/h, 1,430 mph) at 10,000 m (33,000 ft) altitude
Stall speed: 240 km/h (150 mp/h)
Range: 3,000 km (1,864 mi)
Service ceiling: 17,000 m (55,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 325 m/s (48,500 ft/min)
Wing loading: 483 kg/m²; (98.9 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.83
Maximum turn: +8 g[49] (+78 m/s²)
Landing speed: 240 km/h (149 mph)

Armament
1 × 30 mm GSh-30-1 cannon with 150 rounds
Up to 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) of munitions on twelve external hardpoints, including:
8 × R-27 and 4 × R-73 air-to-air missile
Various bombs and rockets
Electronic countermeasure (ECM) pods

As you can see, the Su-33 CANNOT carry nearly as much armament as a Su-30, although they have very same specs. The MTOW is also less for the Su-33 - precisely because of the same reason - STOBAR platform.

As per USN records, CATOBAR allows for a 25% extra load in terms of armament/ MTOW and increases the range by 20-25%. The sortie rate was the same PER catapault against a single STOBAR ski-lift- 45 secs between aircraft launch PER catapault. However, with 4 Catapaults in a CVN or 2 catapaults in a CVG, the sortie rate will increase to (30 secs for a pair) simply because the number of aircraft launched can be staggered. Watch the military channel video posted on this forum. Very informative, although a little dated by now.


For MKI, none of the ToT required for development were transferred. Only minimal ToT were transformed for manufacturing too. The steel plates and other material are NOT made de novo in India. They come either as knock down kits (early on) or as pre-fabricated sheets (later) - to save "time" and expense. Actually, DRDO does not even have the facilities to make that category of steel from raw material. Even in Russia there are only a few factories which can make that quality/ grade of steel. The Engines are pretty much "kits" that are assembled. Most of the avionics and armament are all made in Russia and are AT BEST assembled in India.

The T-90S ToT was again a strictly "need to know" ToT - i.e. the minimal amount necessary to cut and build from pre-fabricated material. India has got very little actual knowledge transfer from the Russians in spite of all the billions of dollars spent there. The Indian personnel have picked up a lot of important info along the way - but that is more incidental than official "ToT".

 

[p2prada]

As you can see, the Su-33 CANNOT carry nearly as much armament as a Su-30, although they have very same specs.

Wrong. Firstly, we have to understand the concept for MTOW. MTOW is the maximum designed allowable weight that can be carried by the aircraft without exceeding structural limits. You can say an aircraft will never be used at MTOW through its entire lifetime. At MTOW the Su-30 carries 8 tons while Su-33 carries 6.5 tons. But the real life weights they carry are far lesser.

For eg: The max a Su-30 will carry is probably 3 1500Kg bombs and that is rare. Instead they carry 2 1500Kg bombs with 2 or 4 air to air missiles. The mission loadout depends on mission profile. There is a chance, highly likely, that the Su-30 will carry only 1 1500Kg bomb, no air to air missiles, it will drop the bomb and come back.

In the Soviet doctrine, the Su-33 is also meant for air to air roles rather than air to ground. So, their mission loadout will be different.

In the Indian Navy we need our aircraft to be multirole in nature. The Mig-29k, from a 195m deck, is designed to fly at full MTOW with pretty much the same weapons load that the Rafale carries. The Mig-29k can also carry 4 1150L drop tanks for tanker missions.

The Su-33 is simply an old aircraft, so whatever it carried previously is simply not enough now. But a N-PAKFA can carry everything internally with a full fuel load without any problems.

The reason why Su-33s and even MKI fly at half fuel load is only because the 12.5 tons of thrust from each engine can maintain a T/W of 1:1 and above only to maintain an edge in maneuverability. Even then the fuel load is greater than the EF-2000, though the range reduces a bit more.

The MTOW is also less for the Su-33 - precisely because of the same reason - STOBAR platform.

Check the Rafale if you have doubts, you will see big differences between Rafale and Rafale-M. This has less do with STOBAR or CATOBAR and more to do with the design required for carrier aviation where the wings need to fold and hence are less stronger. Weight is increased due to a stronger undercarriage as well.

As per USN records, CATOBAR allows for a 25% extra load in terms of armament/ MTOW and increases the range by 20-25%. The sortie rate was the same PER catapault against a single STOBAR ski-lift- 45 secs between aircraft launch PER catapault. However, with 4 Catapaults in a CVN or 2 catapaults in a CVG, the sortie rate will increase to (30 secs for a pair) simply because the number of aircraft launched can be staggered. Watch the military channel video posted on this forum. Very informative, although a little dated by now.

Then USN will be surprised knowing the Mig-29k is designed to take off at MTOW from the Gorky using it's own power. They are giving specs for their own aircraft, not Russian.

For MKI, none of the ToT required for development were transferred. Only minimal ToT were transformed for manufacturing too. The steel plates and other material are NOT made de novo in India. They come either as knock down kits (early on) or as pre-fabricated sheets (later) - to save "time" and expense. Actually, DRDO does not even have the facilities to make that category of steel from raw material. Even in Russia there are only a few factories which can make that quality/ grade of steel. The Engines are pretty much "kits" that are assembled. Most of the avionics and armament are all made in Russia and are AT BEST assembled in India.

No ace, you are still stuck in the US of A. The ToT was 100%. We are making the entire thing at home without having to source anything but the tools. The radar was indigenized some years ago and is being made in Hyderabad.

The Kits production has ended as of 2010. We are making everything right down to nuts and bolts on our own for the MKI. This is as per a HAL director. Nothing is being imported from Russia save for tools, and even that's a maybe because I don't know this part. We are making "that" category of steel as well. The engines aren't kits, they are being made from scratch, the entire thing is made in India. Nothing is being assembled in India using Russian imports for the MKI. Only electronics sourced from France and Israel are imported.

Hope this answers your question Param.

The T-90S ToT was again a strictly "need to know" ToT - i.e. the minimal amount necessary to cut and build from pre-fabricated material. India has got very little actual knowledge transfer from the Russians in spite of all the billions of dollars spent there. The Indian personnel have picked up a lot of important info along the way - but that is more incidental than official "ToT".

Let me surprise you a bit more. You are wrong again. The T-90 has been indigenized, we are making the T-90 too with our own steel. OFB was quite vocal about indigenizing the T-90 in 2009 to the point where they even mentioned the size of the Kanchan armour that is going in the T-90(130mm). The only aspect of T-90 which is still imported is the ammunition. The composite armour which was denied ToT was replaced with the Kanchan in order to make the T-90 a 100% Indian product. OFB was tinkering with the T-90s gun since 2005, they used their own materials and the gun was of poor quality. Once ToT came in 2008, they started making the same guns that go in Russian T-90s with the same level of quality. The T-90s that came in prefabricated material, knocked down and semi knocked kits came with Russian armour. The indigenous tanks come with Kanchan armour.

 

[p2prada]

I really dont understand you here at all?
Why would STOBAR aircrafts take more deck space than Catapult one;s?

195m on our carriers is a lot of space and it's needed for the Mig to fly at full load. In the air to air mode, the Mig-29k need less than 100m to take off because of the lesser weight. Two Mig-29ks can take off in this mode, while only one Mig-29k can take off at a time in the first mode which needs 195m.

Also, that ugly ramps does not allow parking of aircraft like we can on flat decks.

Two aircrafts can be launched seconds apart in a CdG as well as Vikramditya

The seconds depends on what mode. At 195m, only one aircraft can take off from Gorky while the CdG can launch two every 30 seconds.

Multiple catapults are for redundancy

Yes and they are an advantage when both are working.

Catapults take a lot of under deck hanger space. Because of the machinery thats comes with it. Therefore reducing the number of aircraft carried

Both Vikrant and CdG carry a similar amount. If I can throw a Hawkeye in the air, then who cares. IN is going for catapults. They were disappointed when they realized the E-2 cannot be used on Gorky or Vikrant.

Catapults allow more fuel and arms on the aircraft in comparison to ski jump. Changing the aircraft from a Air Defense mode to a more Strike Aircraft

Like I said in my post to Ace. The Mig-29k can take off from carriers at full fuel load and a healthy payload that equals the catapult assisted aircraft.

STOBAR has higher sortie rate because there is no 'breaking parts' in them.

Only when the aircraft are light and meant only for air to air roles.

 

[Immanuel]

No you can't , the F-35 will be outperformed by both, especially the EF on A2A. But you won't find out for 15years and probably never as India can't afford the F-35.

Firstly, India can afford the F-35 and the IN will end up buying it. All that is required is for IAF and IN to test the F-35, its performance will sell itself.

F-35 JSF infrared sensor tracks rocket launch - YouTube

Fact is with it's DAS F-35 could spot a rocket lauch clearly at over 1200 km away, the F-35 will be able to spot the EF and Rafale while they light their afterburners for take off still on the tarmac from ranges beyond the detection ranges of cutting edge radars like the Swordfish.

F-35 JSF APG-81 AESA Radar - YouTube

The fact its RWR will spot them from very far away. Its sensors give it a good choice of options, once in the air, it can begin by preventing the fighters from taking off at all in the first place. Fly in low or high, jammers blazing, bomb the crap out of the airfield and prevent a A2A engagement in the first place. In the air to air mode it can hold its own, it can play a high AOA game when it comes to a dogfight or combined with long range detection it can pull BVR roles very smoothly even with its external role on. It will jam you, detect you on RWR, IRST, AESA and fire its weapons from a good range and disappear.

 

[ace009]

I would agree with you Immanuel, except for the A2A part - the JSF in it's "stealth" mode can carry only two A2A missiles internally - it can carry 6 more externally, but that compromises it's stealth features SIGNIFICANTLY (external weapons load makes it as visible as the EF/ Rafale). As a result, the "stealth" mode JSF will have only 2 BVR missiles for self defense and then it has to go into a silent mode to outrun it's opponent(s). Since the new aerial warfare doctrine favors the use of 2 BVR missiles against one opponent, it means that two itnercepting 4.5 gen fighters will be able to disrupt the strike capabilities of a single JSF.
The JSF does not even have a gun, which means that in case of a close encounter after it has fired it's 2 BVR AAMs, the JSF cannot shoot back, but has to run away.
On the other hand, it is rare that a JSF will hunt alone. While in a pack of 4-6 of them together, 2-3 will carry 8 (6 external+2 internal) A2A missiles and be in the "non-stealth" mode - equivalent to the "stealth" mode of a 4.5 gen fighter, the others will be in stealth mode mostly carryijng A2G loads. It is this unique capability that makes the JSF so deadly.