Basically it can't supercruise, basically it hasn't the same agility, basically its avionic is not tune.
The F-35 has better avionics than F-22, was never designed to be a super cruiser and would require thrust vectoring to get the same kind of agility which would add a lot of cost, besides I already conceded that the F-22 in terms of raw performance was better so why are you arguing?
You know why?
Because it was studied as an attack fighter, to replace A10 and F16 in CAS role (to explain its sugar piece shape) and they tried to change it as a fighter to replace exported F16.
Joint Strike FIGHTER was always going to be a fighter, and was always designed as an F-16 replacement, one can simply look how many F-16 using countries signed on to the JSF as a program before X-35 was even picked. I don't understand why we are "arguing" about this? you seem to have problems with basic history, as if the F in JSF stood for something else and then was later switched. its very similar to the "nostalgia" vision you used with the F-16 earlier. The F-16 was a complicated international program, went over budget, suffered delays, exceeded the individual aircraft "not to exceed" price (LOL), suffered fleet wide groundings, had troubles with the gun, was the centerpiece of frequent negative GAO reports, fights over workshare, nations barred and kicked out, first used in combat by Israel... it all sounds pretty familiar to me. except that the F-16 suffered far more crashes and accidents. Rather than being "another F-104," the problems with F-16 were resolved to the point where even you either forgot about them or were never aware of them in the first place. now people thing the F-16 is a near perfect machine, and the F-35 is nothing like it.
We never had the parameters of these eval.
The sole real leak was 2011 Swiss eval, unfortunately withour F35, and the looser, Gripen, was choosen !!!!
In the last swiss eval sudenly the simulation hours can replace real flights.... It is biaised, and you know that.
The F-35 beat the next closest competitor by a wide margin and it wasn't just flight simulator hours, and you know that. Its taking one thing and using it to discredit the entire rest of the report. even if the F-35 lost on flight hours, its still won in nearly every other area.
and remember your entire arguement was "muh diplomacy" while ignoring the reports that show the Rafale as underperforming against the F-35.
you can read a summary of the initial swiss decision here. flight hours or not its pretty damning
Current information from the Federal Administration. All press releases from the Federal Administration, the departments and offices.
www.admin.ch
diplomacy is just the "hot and ready to serve" universal French excuse.
the French ignore the quantifiable reasons they did not win against the F-35 and instead just claim "diplomacy" its an act of subterfuge that hides the truth. maybe if you yell "diplomacy" enough times people will forget there was a 2 year evaluation done at all.
The French hive mind makes up its 2 or 3 excuses and then serves them as needed forever. this protects them from reality. There is no need for "diplomacy" when the F-35 sweeps the evaluation.
Fighter aircraft: F-35A offers highest overall benefit at lowest cost by far
All the candidates met the requirements set for the evaluation. For both the fighter aircraft and the longer-range GBAD system, the candidate promising the highest benefit was also the one priced the lowest. In the case of the fighter aircraft, this candidate is the F-35A. With 336 points, it showed the highest overall benefit and was the clear winner with a lead of 95 points or more over the other candidates. This aircraft scored best in three of the four main criteria evaluated:
• In terms of effectiveness, the F-35A achieved the best result because it has a marked technological advantage over the other candidates: it includes entirely new, extremely powerful and comprehensively networked systems for protecting and monitoring airspace. The F-35A is able to ensure information superiority; this means pilots benefit from a higher situational awareness in all task areas when compared with the other candidates. This is especially true for day-to-day air policing.
What is more, the F-35A is the only aircraft that has been designed from the ground up to be especially difficult for other weapons systems to detect. The resulting high survivability is a great advantage for the Swiss Air Force.
In addition, because the F-35A is comparatively easy to operate and is able to provide information superiority, it requires less training and has a better ratio of flight to simulator hours. Because of this, the F-35A requires about 20% fewer flight hours than other candidates, and about 50% fewer take-offs and landings than the Air Force’s current jet aircraft, which the F-35A will be replacing.
Finally, it can be assumed that as the newest of the weapons systems evaluated, the F-35A will be able to sustain its technological lead well into the future. Given the planned service life of 30 years, this is a major advantage over the other candidates.
I think its funny that in all of the above the only think the French decided was untrue was the flight hour part. I would think that the "marked technological advantage over other candidates" or "information superiority" or "high survivability" would have raised some French eyebrows, but I guess that is just a fact everyone accepts. even if price was not a factor, the F-35 performed better than Rafale. meaning if the F-35 cost as much as the Rafale does, the F-35 would still be picked. even if we factor out the simulator, the F-35 still wins on cost, making the French whining just another meaningless footnote.
Exactly for the same reason that f-35 failed in UAE and not The Rafale : Geopolitics.
UAE dont want to suffer the US way to see the world.
at least you are finally admitting its politics and not some bizarro stilted "they buy this, but not that, and that must mean this and that" strange "logic."
the truth finally came out. Very different from what you claimed earlier. have we given up on the petty and strange non-sequiturs?
in the end the political lens and "umbrella" comes back to the fact that France is being beaten in Europe. the UAE sales are great. no doubt about that. but at the same time it is not Europe. And as the French empire abroad shrinks and suffers France is turning its eyes to ruling the European continent as its new empire. That is why you talk about the umbrella France provides. The world sees, we know what France is up to.
look out India!! France is looking for new colonies to rule!!
Greece want to keep a choice and so choose to have both fighters.
Europe choose mainly the F-35 because they want the US umbrella to stay in Europe.
it doesn't explain the high placement of the Gripen in these evaluations and ignores the evaluations essentially all together.
The endless French excuse of "diplomacy" or "politics" doesn't hold water because it forgets the evaluations. The evaluations are the tactical comparison between the aircraft themselves, diplomacy is a very small factor (talking about "offsets)
The French mindsight is that the Rafale is tactically perfect so it must be "outside factors" like politics and diplomacy. the Rafale is good but the F-35 beats it, and we have the papers there to prove it and it was not just a one time occurance. the Swiss were very tactful in that they never name who the "next closest competitor is." for all we know its the EF Typhoon, or likely the other gringo offering the Super Hornet or a combination of all competitors. the diplomacy argument falls short yet again when we see the Gripen doing better than Rafale in Finland. or is Sweden a really big country with a super big defense umbrella too!?
the big question is rather than the French attempting to save face in the F-35 thread with excuses everyone can see through, is "what can be done to "fix" the Rafale to make it more competitive" and its not the Trumpian way of talking about America's "bigness"