The Super Hornet does not have a variant without folding wings.
I realize that.
I never said there is a version with folding wings. I was making a valid analogy of a hypothetical scenario that "if there was one" then it wouldn't be so drastically different from the existing Super Hornet.
The added weight of these motors, hinges and hydraulic systems alters the aircraft’s center of gravity requiring months of effort to rewrite flight control laws, flight test and restrict flight envelope to prevent structural failure.
You're point is that it's not worth making that variant for the IAF contract for just 26 aircraft, and I essentially agreed with you on that. My point was that it's very well doable and Dassault is very much capable of doing it. That's all. We can certainly agree to disagree.
Absolutely not sure.
In case of a high level crisis, saying agaisnt China, the use of electronic counter measures will be so high, the battlefield so confuse, the separation between frend or foe so difficult that the use of medium range air to air missile really difficult.
Juste remember desert storm air operations, and how many friend birds were destroyed by friend forces despite IFF.
In this case you will have to positively identify your ennemy, so 30km max. Very near the WVR, where agility is decisiv.
That's a good point. Most likely why you see fighters -- more often than not -- carrying standard, short/medium range missiles rather than medium/long range ones depending on the type. MICA IR & EM, IRST more so than Meteors. F-16s, F-15s, F-18s even F-22s carry AIM-9(X) more often than AMRAAMs etc.
When the F-35 was being developed and tested, they had set certain goals for it and when it would fall short of some, they lowered those to make them attainable.
Then they gave it additional support by making it a flying supercomputer, assisted by a vast network-centric environment. They developed its advanced sensor fusion among other things. All that resulted in giving the F-35 a reputation that it essentially would be the one invincible fighter jet out there. It will rule the skies with those capabilities since it will have the lowest observable signature on top of all those other features.
There was also the monopoly of allies; a brilliant way of adding more strength on top of it all. All the allies will not only have all its capabilities, but they will also be able to "plug into" that network-centric environment to make it even more powerful with strength in numbers.
Then they beautifully sold the concept of it engaging enemy targets from the longest distances and have the highest winning percentage because it will always see & shoot the enemy first before they see it. That concept of stealth + technology + assets + strength in numbers has since dominated the direction of aerial warfare. As a result, high G maneuvering was not the top priority, so they were ok with giving it a 7.5 / 8 G cap.
That new direction and the advent of laser weapons, loyal wingmen, new materials, drones/UAVs/UCAVs, advanced automation and especially the use of AI will increase the accuracy and percentage of kill probabilities at longer distances. It will make the parity in strength even more lopsided in favor of the United States and its friends than it already is.
It is strange that USN continue to purchase LO destroyer (Arleigh Burke serial) and not a VLO one as nearly all the worldwide navies, and specially chinese one.
Most likely because of the cost, right? The Zimwalt class destroyers that were supposed to replace the Arleigh Burke cost $22 billion for its development and each ship is $4+ billion lol. As opposed to a little under $2 billion per AB class. But if anything needs stealth more, I would think it's naval platforms since they're easier to spot, harder to maneuver and evade threats making them easier to target and destroy than aircraft and need more additional assets to protect them.
