@
500
You obviously put a lot of effort in the comparison and that must be appreciated, but it has a lot of flaws, which starts even with the titel of the thread, that doesn't fit to the comparision as such, since you hardly include any multi role capability into the comparison. What you compared is basically flight performance and tech capability, which would be the same if you include single role fighters like Su 27s or Jaguars and where the results of the calculations showed, the the stealth category actually doesn't fit at all wrt multi role capability.
Then there are these imo artificial credits to certain fighters in certain fields, for example:
- extra points for TVC, but not for canards, or for internal weapon carriage of F35, while that doesn't make it any better in speed or ceilling than most of the 4th gen fighters with external loads, since the flight performance remain inferior (no extra points for Supercruise at least in the initial calculation if I got it right) and why wasn't the G-limits included?
-for additional points for F35s radar, which are far away from being credible and the calculation does not include key radar features like FoV, targets that can be tracked and engaged at the same time...,
- Range is the field where calculation is the most flawed, since you took a load of 2000Kg, but counted the full fuel internal capacity only , but a Rafale for example with 2000Kg load, would not only have the internal 4700Kg fuel, but also 2 x 1600Kg in external fuel tanks. That means 7900Kg fuel and not 4700Kg only and when we take that figure to account, the Rafale would score a 0.4 according to your formular much closer to the F35 than you showed it. The F18SH would carry even around 9000Kg and would come at a score of 0.444, so at the number 1 spot! Your calculation basically benifited only those fighters that carries fuel fully internally and that resulted in the wide gap of points and a preference of the stealth fighters of course.
- Stealth as mentioned above is questionable, but also is highly debatable, since you mainly made broad estimations nothing more. You have the F35 and the F22 the same 100 points, although the latter is considered to be more stealthy, especially when we include the likely fact that IR missiles might be carried in strike roles only externally. And when you then see the estimates you made on RCS, where a JF 17 that doesn not even any RCS reduction measures as of now is placed on the same level of the Eurocanards, which are designed and developed with a very low RCS, makes this category pointless.
- radar as mentioned must include more sub categories, to evaluate the real performance, but here again, there are many estimates, even from radars that are not even available. Also since modern fighter do not only radar for detection, you should increase this category by adding passiv detection capabilities like IRST, RWR, MAWS... as well. The sum of these detection capabilities tells us much more about the fighters capability today, than basic radar range comparisons.
Looking at these points, it makes clear why the F35 fared so well in your comparison, because the categories and the credits benefitted it. But when the aim is to compare the capability of a modern multi role fighter, other things count too, like the mentioned passive detection capabilities, how many roles the fighter actually can do, if it can carry a full set of 2 x WVR + 2 x BVR missiles in any role to have a credible self defence capability, the FoV of active and passive detection, not only the range...