Lets see....
In 65
PAF
120 F-86 ( 2 sqd were equipped with AIM-9B which had 10% accuracy and was designed to shot slow moving soviet bombers)
12 F-104 ( even though this plane was the most advance in the region but what is 12 going to do?)
IAF
100 Ouragan (inferior to F-86)
110 Mystere-4A (minus AAM it was French equivalent of F-86)
144 Gnat (superior maneuverability in comparison to F-86)
160 Hunter (a generation ahead of F-86)
12 MiG-21F-13 (par with F-104 however they never saw any action because they were destroyed from PAF F-86 strafing run)
So thats 120 vs 500+ and IAF still got its *** kicked.
In 1971 their was no comparison since IAF was even more better equipped with Mig-21 and Su-7 and numerous neutral defence sources supports PAF narrative that IAF lost alot more planes then PAF.
Heck IAF could not even destroy the lone F-86 sqd in East Pakistan even after many air raids attempt. If we dont take captured F-86 in account then kill to death ration is even more higher for PAF.
All the mentioned planes are technologically superior to PAF fleet.
Bison > F-7PG
Jaguar > Mirage-III
Mirage-2K > F-16
In 1965, India faced a surprise attack by Pakistan and hence lost more fighters. It is always natural that element of surprise has a major role.
Secondly, the F86 & F104 were the best in class compared to all the fighters which India had excepting MiG21. This played a major role in causing higher losses. About 140 vs 500 planes, India did not go and destroy entire Pakistan and hence you can't claim that pakistan won. Considering the superiority of PAF in 1965, if the war had gone to a conclusion, PAF would have lost its 140 planes taking about 250 Indian planes due to the superiority of PAF planes. So, higher losses to India in the ratio of 1:2 was expected.
In 1971, India clearly outclassed Pakistan in air front. This was despite PAF attacking IAF first. Neutral sources put IAF losses at 45 while PAF at 75. India may not have been able to destroy F86 in East Pakistan but that was because Pakistan hid those planes in mountains or underground bunkers. IAF ensured that there was no fly zone in East Pakistan and that is considered as victory.
How do you even know F35 is using 180nm chipsets from 2003? Production started in 2018 and Americans aren't like Indians. The companies here generally provide an hardware/software update before an design is locked in probably every 2 years. Compatibility testing is also done before even considered. I don't think F35 design was locked in before 2013 anyway.
First let's learn to walk, then we can run. When Russian equipments triumph American ones in battlefield then you can brag.
What chipset do you think was used in F22? It went to production in 1996. Don't talk nonsense that Indians are known to brag. Known according to whom? Don't others brag at all? You just have low IQ and hence bring nonsensical topics instead of talking with facts.
Software update is provided every 2 years but not hardware. Hardware change requires complete upgradation and refit. Who told you that F35 was not locked before 2013? It has been under production since 2006. Secondly, the reliability of older generation of semiconductor is higher due to larger node size and hence higher tolerance to fluctuations. The thinner nodes tend to get affected more severely by variations in temperatures and jerks caused in accidents or wear and tear. This also means that semiconductor below 65nm will never be used in strategic application where reliability matters most.
As for MKI upgrade, Russians were really pissed off when we considered integrating I derby on MKI and refused to cooperate. Even when BrahMos integration was done only required parts of source codes are provided making integration with Radar possible. You don't get full source codes for any fighters. Thats like the kidney of an fighter.
Without the source code, India has to probably design an new mission computer, new HUD, new radar or existing ones with fresh programming , new weapons bla bla making the programme very expensive. Just like the Chinese J11. Does Indian budget support the disruption now
Derby requires Israeli integration which Russia did not like due to close Israeli affiliation with USA. India makes the radar and its codes and hence does not need Russian codes. The processor of the radar is Indian made in Su30 MKI, not Russian if you did not know. Now, the hardware is indeed Russian TOT and hence India will be betraying Russia if it ever exposes the limit of the hardware to USA allies. So, India needs Russian consent to ensure Russia does not feel betrayed. But when India is doing things by itself, there is no need for asking Russian consent. If you don't understand things, don't talk like a genius
F-35 was officially subject to 'maneuver restrictions' in earlier years during the course of its trials. These restrictions are lifted in the Block 3f update for each F-35 unit.
[1] Maneuver Restrictions
Under previous versions of software, the JSF was restricted in maneuvering based on fuel weight and, under the best of conditions, the F-35A was limited to seven gravitational force equivalents (G-forces), simply called “Gs.” This forced pilots to artificially pad or limit their turns, so as not to “over-G” the aircraft. In a defensive engagement for example, pilots looking over their shoulder at the aircraft prosecuting them would underplay their “G” loading to ensure that they did not place too much stress on the jet (“over-G”) and force an untimely end to their sortie.
Those restrictions are now completely gone, and even with a full internal weapons load-out and fuel, pilots can pull back as far as the stick will go and let the jet limit loadings to nine Gs anytime the jet is capable of generating that kind of turn. As discussed below (under “The Weapons School Standard”), that same finesse is what fighter pilots have always referred to as energy management, and it can only be learned through multiple, regular air-to-air training repetitions—which are currently not taking place.
Maneuverability output of any combat aircraft is not fixed but variable - subject to numerous conditions.
[2] F-35A Dogfight Performance
The energy maneuverability (EM) performance of fourth-generation fighters is very often exaggerated by the idea that these fighters fly combat missions in absolutely clean “airshow” configurations. No fourth-generation jet in the U.S. inventory (or any other) goes into combat that way, and most will carry significant external stores (bomb racks, munitions, fuel tanks, and targeting pods) in order to accomplish their mission. When pilots know they are about to enter a dogfight situation requiring the best EM their jets can deliver, they will jettison fuel tanks and unexpended bombs, but almost every pod, rack, or missile rail is permanently affixed, adding significant weight, drag, and radar cross section (RCS) that cannot be jettisoned in flight.
If weapons are jettisoned prior to hitting air-to-ground targets, pilots will fail in their primary (multirole) tasking. Even post-jettison, the G-restrictions associated with targeting, forward-looking infrared (FLIR), and HARM Targeting System (HTS) pods will remain and generally restrict jets to eight Gs or less. While most fighters still perform adequately in those post-jettison configurations, air combat EM performance suffers considerably.
That is why demonstrations of maneuverability in Airshow(s) are merely 'publicity stunts' with "clean configurations" to create an impression on audience.
Fifty-one experienced pilots currently flying the F-35A were asked to rate the energy and maneuvering characteristics of their previous fourth-generation fighters in a combat configuration throughout the dogfighting maneuver envelope in a combat configuration after jettisoning their external stores. They were then asked to rate the performance of the F-35A using the same scale, with fuel and internal munition loads associated with a combat loadout. The F-35A compared well to the four other fighters (F-15C, F-15E, F-16C, and A-10) in most every regime. (For the total results and responses from the pilots of each respective fighter, see Chart 1.)
Each pilot was then asked to select which fighter he would rather fly in combat if he were to face a clone flying the other jet in six different air-to-air situations. (See Chart 2.) If the pilot selected an F-15C in a short-range set-up, for example, he felt he could outperform a pilot of equal abilities in the F-35A. Former fourth-generation pilots selected the F-35A 100 percent of the time in beyond-visual-range situations, and more than 75 percent of the time in visual dogfights where energy and maneuverability are critical to success. The number one reason pilots selected their previous fighter over the F-35A in any one of the four visual fight scenarios was the fact that their previous fighter had an AIM-9X missile for those fights, and the F-35A did not. The scenario that each pilot was given included aircraft configurations for the early stages of a war where stealth was required for the F-35A. There, the jet has no external stores, and since the AIM-9X missile can only be carried externally, that missile was not available.
Just look at the comparison of F15C vs F35. F15E is a strike aircraft and hence not to be compared with F35 which is mainly for air superiority. The turn performance or maneuverability of F15C was always better than F35. F35 has better response at slow speed because of its huge engine but the maneuverability is low.
Secondly, f35 does not have massive in built space for attacks either. The number of missiles which can be fit are minimal at 4 BVR missiles and 2 WVR missiles. Since WVR is not really advantageous for F35 as its main role is stealth BVR, having merely 4 BVR is insufficient. Su57 for example, has wing pattern where BVR is kept in internal bay and yet has enough maneuverability and huge internal fuel tank. F35 hardly has any real advantage over Su57. Coming to planes like Su30/Su35, both these planes also have huge internal fuel tank. Also, the carrying of BVR externally does not affect maneuverability much as the weight of BVR missiles is negligible compared to massive weight of aircraft and the BVR missiles are shaped to reduce drag. Since fuel tank is not needed, Su30/Su35 does not have any additional burden in maneuvering. Only element lost is the VLO but these planes were never meant to be 5th generation VLO planes. The maneuverability of Su30 with 4 BVR missiles is higher than that of F35 with missiles in internal bay. This maneuverability problem is what I am emphasising.
Airframe of F-35 is a generational leap from earlier designs in terms of design and construction materials - optimized for supermaneuverability in VLO format - exceedingly difficult task to accomplish.
As for F-35 being fat:-
Because F-35 have it
all internal including "fuel tanks" - important stealthy characteristic and consideration.
Su-57 feature a standard Sukhoi airframe with RCS reduction treatments - nothing revolutionary in this design. Boeing did a better job with its F-15SE Silent Eagle proposition, and very easily (mature variant demonstrated in a span of just 1 year).
Su-57 is not a true 5th generation combat aircraft but fit in the 4.5th generation class as per American parameters. Substantial achievement for Sukhoi but nothing significant for Americans.
Su57 is a stealth plane with maneuverability and USA does not like to admit that its F35 is inferior and hence belittles Su57. F35 is inferior to Su57 due to poor maneuverability. Russia is not inferior when it comes to avionics and electronics as we can see from its advanced defence systems like S400, Su35 etc.
F is better than current Su30 because of electronics upgrade. But with Super Sukhoi upgrade, that superiority will end.
F-15EX also have true 5th generation sensor fusion architecture.
The modern F-15E shows how neatly compartmentalizing fighters into “generations” can be misleading and subconsciously shape our perceptions. Consider the fifth-generation F-35’s much-lauded sensor fusion. This is enabled by computing power, software, sensors, and algorithms; all items with high potential to scale to other platforms — and they have. Despite the hype, the reality is that almost all current fighters have had some form of sensor fusion for the better part of a decade. In fact, the newest, largest, and most capable radar and the highest computing power on a U.S. aircraft aren’t on a fifth-generation fighter — they’re on the F-15E.
In the time I’ve flown the F-15E I’ve seen it progress through seven major operational software updates (called suites) and various hardware upgrades, each more integrated and potent than the last. When the next software upgrade arrives it will have even more sensors and hardware. In fact, the only limitation keeping it from achieving sensor fusion on par with the F-35 is its cockpit displays. As an example of how sequestration and funding instability drive incoherent budget choices, nearly $12 billion in aforementioned F-15E sensor upgrades are still stubbornly pushed through 1980s displays that use cathode-ray tubes to produce low-quality analog video that aren’t even all color, let alone digital, touchscreen, or high-resolution. The impressive F-35 cockpit has all of this, and that makes all the difference. The F-15EX enhanced cockpit displays mirror the newest displays coming to both F/A-18 Block III and F-35 Block 4, mostly because they are all made by the same company.
Figure 3. F-15 cockpit over time. Cockpit displays are the limiting factor in achieving full sensor fusion. (Image: Boeing/Author/U.S. Air Force.)
Link:
https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15ex-the-strategic-blind-spot-in-the-air-forces-fighter-debate/
F-15
EX is not a 40 years old combat aircraft - this is ridiculous assumption. It is 5th generation class with a caveat - VLO design aspects substituted with exceedingly powerful EW capabilities.
Now every modern-era combat aircraft have EW capabilities but these are
not uniform. Some are weak in this area, and some are potent in this area. F-15EX feature EW capabilities* in the class of F-22A and F-35 variants - understand the difference.
*
identified as EPAWSS.
From BAE:-
"Providing both offensive and defensive electronic warfare options for the pilot and aircraft, EPAWSS offers fully integrated radar warning, geo-location, situational awareness, and self-protection solutions to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats in signal-dense contested and highly contested environments. Equipped with advanced electronic countermeasures, it enables deeper penetration against modern integrated air defense systems, providing rapid response capabilities to protect the aircrew.
An all-digital system, it requires a smaller footprint than previous systems, allowing it to seamlessly integrate new capabilities and remain current. A platform-level solution, it provides the F-15 with improved reliability and maintainability, helping reduce long term life cycle costs to keep the aircraft fielded now and into the future."
Anyone can get sensor fusion. It is just about having semiconductor technology and software to do that. India has semiconductor technology made in SCL and DRDO. So, talk of real hardware which is irreplaceable, not about electronics which can be replaced
