I am not trying to be funny but what needs does Europe need more 4th gen aircrafts as alternatives? Because at least with F-35s you can deal with a near peer adversary in an uncontested airspace.
4th gen aircrafts are a great idea if you want to resolve some conflict in Africa or the middle east or attain resources from there, does Europe even have any kind of involvement there anymore?
Sure does. Just look at the french there
-Most of the combat ranges of Gripens and Rafales fall under a 1000km range, prone to iskander-1000 strikes or what shocked the world the mass production of cheap long-range drones from Iran that can be mass produced. It gets worse because massive satellite production and works to improve their satellite resolution capabilities around 2030 are being done which would encourage more strike capabilities to airbases with drones or missiles. The Eurofighter and F-35 at least have a combat radius that is above the 1000km range but the F-35s can be upgraded to ADVENT engines for longer ranges.
And you don't think that they have no possible engine upgrades? Outside of F414 which does have the proposed EPE/EFE options (if someone pays for it) both M88 and EJ-200 are going to be upgraded and are more likely than ADVENT because for now the ECU upgrade was chosen.
If Gripens, Rafales and Eurofighters have to carry external fuel tanks it would take space for BVR missiles
The eurofighter is designed for 6 Meteor air air missiles and 3 tanks with no problems.
the F-35 can carry these missiles internally while using external fuel tanks to drop later. The F-35s offer longer ranges than these 3 aircrafts for combat radius with a convenience to still use BVR missiles internally with external tanks used for the outside to have an airbase at least further for better safety from missile or drone strikes while still performing combat missions
For now atleast the use of external tanks on F-35 means increased signature even after dropping them.
-By just taking aerodynamic shapes to favor stealth you can according to US and Russian patents, reduce RCS by more than 10 times with on top of that EW capabilities. The Gripen-E, Rafale and Eurofighter for whatever reason why it is popular in Europe have canards
Mostly because:
"Canards on fighter jets are control surfaces located at the front of the aircraft. Their role is essential for stability and maneuverability during flight, enhancing the aircraft’s response in complex maneuvers, thereby increasing combat performance." They also can give aerodynamic advantages in the right configuration with delta wings for example.
which offer more surface area to reflect off with radio waves from the front which is very crucial in any air to air combat.
Which you can also combat (RAM coated or controlled for optimal position to reduce signature) and shown atleast with J-20 to be stealthy enough for an stealth jet. Its not like Elevators are so mutch better in the end.
The Su-35 I heard has a 1m2 RCS and of course news later that the new Su-35SM is getting coated with RAM including the cockpit for a further RCS reduction from the initial value it was given. simple google search states the Eurofighter has applied RAM to wing leading edges, intake edges, and rudder, the Gripen or rafale don't give me any google search results of applying RAM. Overall, it sounds like the Su-35 has better RCS values for simply not having Canards and applying more RAM to its surface areas.
And here we are at the crossroad of how far we come. RCS is not the best system to measure and compare those things (not like we have many options there) but even why jet x/y may have a lower base signature it doesn't mean that the total RCS is lower. Now eurofighter is designed with an evry small frontal RCS even with air to air missiles and they exceeded the goal back then. Give or take who you believe and which variant with what specific loadout an RCS of 0.5-0.01 may be in the realm but there are a lot of factors with an impact on it.
Su-35 has undergone newer EW systems in 2016 in Syria and Su-35SM is equipped with an AESA radar and of course newer upgraded EW systems. Take for granted that Europe can still receive the best MMICs that can be given to them for better radar or electronic warfare performance than the Russians the dates of when their new systems will be completed along with the new produced aircrafts with those new produced systems will take time and will be small in numbers for a certain timeframe depending how fast they will restart their production if their energy sector or their economy permits it viable for it to happen.
For eurofighter not only upgrades too DASS happend but we also see multiple developments (EK and LTE)
Then the final issue would be air to air missiles. in 1994 a Mig-31 hit an aerial target from 304kms away, Seekers on missiles have improved and supposedly the newer versions of the R-37s are 300-400kms and some news stating that they are being used against fighter aircrafts as well in a certain war.
Sure R-37(M) can reach far but we first need too detect the jet and combat the ew suite which is something most of the ukrainian air force doesnt have with the same capability compared as eurofighter or rafale.
Meteor missiles would be the BVR choice and google search gives me 100-300km results on the range and no offense to anyone from there I don't think the British exceed the US or Russia in missile technology based on many other missile comparisons.
Now in air to air combate maximum missile range aren't as important as other factors (more an extend of it). Things like NEZ (no escape Zone) do have a mutch more important effect on combat for which both designs have their own advantage and are hard to compare.
-The Su-57s are being pumped out in good batches
Do they? Now im not up too date on it but aren't they still on there way of producing there first batch of ~70 fighter?
soon to reach a considerable amount, Su-75s are to be test flighted this year and eventually there might be more planned production for both.
Same here but lets wait and see as we hardly can do more.
Purchasing F-35s you can still deal with those threats and technology replacement and upgrades for existing F-35 purchases would still be available later. It still sounds like a better idea to do now than jump from 4th gen production capabilities into supposedly 6th gen production capabilities.
Yes(ish). A lot of Air forces which can't wait until FCAS/ GCAP and want more than F-35 (or don't have a choice) have already chosen F-35 for a full or partial replacement of there fleets.
Purchasing 4th gen fighters would make sense if you were dealing with another country that is located in the middle east or Africa but make no sense to be used against another country with 1.long range missile/drone production,
There a lot of work on countering that and even then what restricts them too build even longer ranged missiles / drones?
2. risk against modernized SAMs,
Yes thats an actual threat but while we have some dedicated wild weasel developments some F-35 user also chose to buy some AARGM-ER.
3. risks against Su-57s, Su-35s, Su-35SM, Su-30SM2 and later Su-75s. The F-35s greatly increase the chances of survival for all 3 of these points while still costing a little more or less than Europe trying to modernize 4th gen aircrafts into production.
Which is why a lot of countries have chosen it but there a lot of factors and problems which hinder or are reasons why some countries have only partial or no F-35s.
Trump being an A-hole is no excuse to make yourself very vulnerable to another country if you believe they will have a conflict with you.
It becomes when you buy them and after 3 years of combat can't fight anymore as you can't maintain your jets. That said there is a work around it
