Boagrius

On 10/5/2020 at 5:06 AM, Must Be Spoon Fed said:

*Trademark drivel*

You came here pushing a tired & long-since debunked narrative on a topic you admit to having a poor understanding of, spammed the thread with crappy links to APA and POGO, and have now doubled down on the absolute nonsense with War is Boring and Foxtrot Alpha (after I warned you about them no less).

Your comments about the Sidekick mod clearly demonstrate your ignorance, since there is nothing unusual about a 4 x AAM loadout, especially for a mid-sized, stealthy (ref FC-31) multirole fighter that needs fewer weapons to achieve its kills. By way of example, the F35's that ripped through the modern IADS at Red Flag 2017 did so with a max of just 2 AMRAAMs each due to the limitations of their early Block 3i software load. Releasing incremental tranches of additional capability - like the growth to 6 internal AAMs - has been standard practice in all new combat aircraft for many decades.

Meanwhile, the fact that you had the audacity (and mind-boggling hypocrisy) to turn your nose up at the plethora of (vastly superior) other sources you were gifted is farcical. Literally none of them "lead to nowhere" and all of them address precisely what was claimed in the context of the relevant arguments - none of which you provided a cogent rebuttal to or demonstrated even a basic understanding of. Your inability to grasp the comparison between VLO and TVC as an example of the flawed weighting system in the ZOCT is a good case in point, as is your bizarre and inept response to the Hornet/Flanker BFM video. I was particularly entertained by your own-goal of a link about a rookie F35 unit that out performed highly experienced, air-to-air specialist F15 crews in Japan during BFM drills.

The sources you try to dismiss as "tabloids" are direct quotes from actual fighter pilots with relevant experience and input on the exact matter(s) being discussed (apparently this is only a problem for you when you don't think they suit your narrative). Again, given the fact that most of the relevant data on the F35's kinematic performance is classified, I will take their input along with that of the other service members I have spoken to (from various air forces) over yours every. single. time.

The earlier gripe about me not adequately "quoting" APA is hilarious, because the source material in question (the APA ZOCT table you posted upthread) is literally the first thing I referenced in my rebuttal to it. It is also... just a table, and high school Science class will tell you that one does not "quote" a table. In reality, I clearly laid out my rebuttal in massive, bolded bullet points (can't make it much easier for you than that). All you had to do was refer to your own bloody source while reading it(!). That you have been either too inept or too obstinate to grasp any of the above is, frankly, not my problem.

If you want more information you can find it yourself - I am done spoon feeding you for free (apparently you need me to "chew" for you now too) and I doubt anyone else here has the patience either. Frankly, I think mine has been saintly up to this point, but it has well and truly run out. 

Not an expert but if the Israelis were happy with it I can't see why not. AFAIK the F35I is no different to an ordinary F35A apart from the installation of custom Israeli EW widgets. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong here.

Ah woops, my mistake!

So I guess we know which is the best Flanker version now..?

"On Tuesday, September 22, in the Tver region (Russia), a Su-30 aircraft crashed during a scheduled training flight. According to reports on military forums, he was accidentally shot down by another aircraft during training sparring in air combat...

...According to a report on the Military Informant Telegram channel , on the Su-35S fighter, which was sparring with the crashed Su-30SM, the missiles were removed after combat duty, but the gun was not discharged due to an oversight. Instead of shooting, he unexpectedly fired a real volley."

https://apostrophe.ua/news/world/ex-ussr/2020-09-22/zabyili-razryadit-pushku-v-rossii-istrebitel-sluchayno-podbil-boevoy-samolet/209935

What's going on over in Russia at the moment? First we've got that BMP-2 plinking a friendly T90 with an ATGM and now this. Must make for some awkward debriefs.  

For those interested, The Fighter Pilot Podcast did a solid interview with Lt Col Tucker Hamilton on the F35. IIRC he also got to fly it earlier in the program (before the CLAW had been fine tuned). Still, interesting stuff.

Lt Col Tucker Hamilton on the F35 vs F16 high-AoA CLAW test.

"The pilot wasn't doing a dogfighting test... he had no mission systems on the aircraft, and he was checking how the aircraft did with (I think) a certain pitch/yaw rate"

The F35 used in the test was AF-2, which was using Block 2B software* at the time with a G-limit of 7g's and CLAW restrictions preventing it from doing some of the high alpha stuff that seems to be working well for today's jets (using the 9g-enabling 3F software). The stated purpose of the test was to ensure the jet remained safe to fly while stressing the AoA capability, and to optimise the CLAW in that part of the flight regime... which they did (ergo, 3F).

A quote from Lt Col Ian Knight (flying with 3F software):

"Remember, back when rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents (F-16s) showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles... By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least... On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal 'Smiley' Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon. During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When 'Smiley' told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was golden"

*Corrected below

So I'm going to go ahead and be "that guy" here and say that I find VR is actually a heap of fun in DCS. Unfortunately the footage doesn't lend itself to recording as well as the more stable Track-IR stuff but the DCS + HP Reverb combo is excellent. 
 

^ Utter nonsense. You clearly didn't read/comprehend what I posted properly...  again.

- The Navy budget link directly covers the Sidekick weapon bay mod that will give all F35A's and Cs from Lot 15 onwards the capacity to carry 6 AIM120/260 internally. This is not controversial.
 

- The pilot being interviewed is necessarily general in his feedback since the data on the specific aerodynamic capabilities of the F35 (eg its EM diagrams) is heavily classified and will remain so for decades to come. I will take his word (and that of numerous other relevant members of the operational community) over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

- Your unsupported assertion that the F35 has suffered “various other high profile failures to beat legacy fighters in BFM” is a myth. I suspect it stems from a misleading 2015 blog article by David Axe on a developmental control law test conducted with an F16. In short, it was not a dogfight but Axe tried to spin it as one anyway.

- The Su-30MKM never scored a kill in the three engagements depicted in the video I posted. It used TVC to briefly reverse a losing position into a neutral merge* (the pilot/narrator clearly says this at 12:42) only to be gunned again later on. You are literally making things up now.

*The Flanker's nose was pointed too low for a head-on gun shot, which would have been a no-go for both aircraft anyway.  

- The US aircraft was a legacy Hornet, not a Super Hornet. Once again you are clearly not examining/comprehending information properly.
 

- The link about the F22 was never supposed to relate to BFM, but to highlight the decisive advantage its VLO features have been providing it for over a decade – precisely as I claimed. This is yet more of you failing to adequately read or comprehend the information being presented.

EDIT: Have now added additional quotes, as if there was any doubt about the advantage VLO provides(!).

At this point I have to question whether you are even able to competently engage with what I am posting. It certainly doesn’t seem like it. I think I will leave you to do your own "research" as I can't see any point in persevering here.

I must admit to being a little hurt that my posts didn't rate more highly with Calicifer. I honestly thought they were masterpieces (replete with high quality links/sources) compared to what you'd get from most other fora. *Sigh* back to the drawing board I guess... 

On 6/30/2020 at 12:53 AM, Calicifer said:

Drones provide negligible combat value and are not in mainstream service yet. Most of high profile projects are still under development. It will take a good decade when such things as drone artillery spotters, tanks using drones to extend their awareness or when drones will be able to perform roles of more complex machinery like military aircraft or submarines. 

I think you will find these informative/educational (just press play and the relevant section will start):
 

Bear in mind that this information is now ~6 years old, that the UAS arena has not remained stagnant in that time and that it continues to develop now...

For anyone doubting the utility of UAS on the modern battlefield...

On 8/11/2020 at 9:23 PM, Calicifer said:

 Multi-spectrum link shows exactly why such information is quite useless. It talks about F-35 having much broader spectrum. Literally in that video speaker constantly uses such words like "much wider" and how I'm supposed to understand differences between F-35 and F-22. How much wider it is?

It's not if you bother to do a little follow-up research. He is referring to the fact that the F22 relies entirely on its radar (APG-77) and ESM/EW suite (ALR-94) to detect & track air and surface targets. Both of these work exclusively in the RF spectrum. The Raptor also has the IR based AN/AAR-56, but this is only a missile warning system (for now).

By contrast, the F35 has its radar (APG-81), ESM/EW suite (AN/ASQ-239), long range IRST + targeting pod with laser (EOTS) and spherical close-in IRST with MAWS functionality (AN/AAQ-37). Also, there is simply no comparison between the sensing/data handling capabilities of an F16 and an F35 (with its onboard processing power and fibre optic internal network). Compare their bus data rates, for example. The rough analogy would be an internal 56k dial-up system (F16) vs an onboard 5G network (F35).

If you are after even more detailed technical data, you will find a lot of it is classified, but following Gripen's advice above would be a good starting point.

On 8/10/2020 at 2:56 AM, Calicifer said:

 

You are right, I did not read it correctly, mostly because it was a lot of information and without linking a specific page, I would have to go through hundreds of pages myself. Thank you for your reply, I will make sure to read it and investigate it myself at a later date. I also believe it to be ridiculous that they had proposed to go for F-22. Now it is clear to me why these people in your video were commenting about procuring F-22 which to me appeared quite silly. It was because Air Power Australia had raised this question. I had watched video fully before and to me it appeared that they dismissed them out of hand without properly addressing issues which they had raised. However, after reading document which you had attached, they do address it in 42 page and beyond. Now when I have context for that video and that proposal, I do agree with you.

 

I want to ask you if you can recommend me a source to learn about modern jet fighters. I do understand basics, but more advanced, technical details are beyond me and I would enjoy website or a book who explains in details concept behind air warfare. My focus were always more on ground vehicles as to me they were a lot more intuitive to understand. I even got a partnership deal with a local website to publish articles about warfare, because I was so outraged by nonsense being printed for public. Hopefully, I will be able to write in the future about development and procurement decisions of most modern jet fighters as I'm comfortable speaking about tanks.

No problem, unfortunately there is no individual source that is ideal for getting information on military aircraft. The best advice I can give you is to try to hunt down current defence professionals where possible. It is not easy but there are a variety of places out there where you can get their input (not going to advertise other forums out of respect for this one). As a rule it is wise to be extremely wary of information coming from the blogosphere - places like War Is Boring, The National Interest, Foxtrot Alpha, The Drive etc. There are some think-tanks like RAND, CSBA and ASPI who write interesting (if not flawless) stuff from time to time. That said, even a seemingly independent organisation like POGO has a clear agenda to push. For example:

POGO went after the Abrams tank just before it earned its reputation in Desert Storm
They also went after the F22
Bashing the F22 again
...and again (this one did not age well)
Bashing the V22

The best starting point would be to have a careful read though my last post and go from there. Good luck!

Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I decided to throw this together and I hope everyone finds it interesting/informative. If I have made any mistakes please feel free to point them out and I will be happy to correct them.

At any rate, the issues with APA's Zero One Comparison Table or "ZOCT" are severe and numerous. Here are some of the more egregious ones based on open source information:
 

• The Air Power Australia "ZOCT" is wrong about the F35’s radar.
   
  - Greater radar aperture is advantageous if all else is equal, but it is not in this case. For example,  the ZOCT does not differentiate between the PESA technology in the Irbis-E on the Su-35 and the AESA technology used in the F35’s APG-81. The table does not adequately account for T/R module or LPI/LPD performance, electronic attack or passive detection functionality, radar sub-modes, ECCM and so on. The ZOCT fundamentally ignores the comparative technological sophistication of each radar, with no analysis of their actual capabilities.
  
  - The ZOCT also incorrectly portrays the APG-81 as having the least capable, “medium power aperture". Generally speaking, a larger radar array on an AESA allows for a greater number of track/receive (T/R) modules, which enhances the radar’s detection capability. The ZOCT table is likely linked to APA’s false claim that the APG-81 only has ~1200 T/R modules.
  
  - In reality, the APG-81 has over 1600 T/R modules, which is higher than their (also incorrect) figure of 1500 for the F22’s APG-77. Note that they classify the APG-77 as a “high power aperture” at only 1500 modules, so - using APA's own reasoning - the APG-81 would qualify as a "high power aperture" as well.
  
  - It is also worth noting that the updated T/R modules fitted to the Raptor’s radar in the APG-77(v)1 upgrade were GaA T/R modules derived from the F-35’s own APG-81 (and not the other way around). Objectively speaking, both radars are world leading in their own right and are generally regarded as offering similar performance overall. You can get a reasonable sense of their dimensional similarity below:

• The relevance of side-looking AESA arrays is debatable for a jet with AN/AAQ-37, AN/ASQ-239 and MADL
  
  Much like thrust vectoring, the importance of side-looking AESA arrays to the F35 is debatable, and AFAIK (contrary to how the ZOCT portrays the issue), there are currently no solid plans to install them in any of the aircraft in the table aside from the Su57. It should be noted that, due to size and space constraints, these “cheek” arrays potentially force the main radar array further forward into the nose-cone, limiting the volume it can occupy.
  
  When dealing with LO opponents, it may well be more effective to retain a single larger and more powerful forward-facing array (to maximise detection range vs low RCS targets) while using 360 degree passive sensors and/or offboard donors (via datalink) to deal with contacts outside of the radar’s field of view. The presence or absence of side-facing radar arrays is arguably more a matter of CONOPS than an outright advantage in every case.
   

• The ZOCT is wrong about supersonic weapons delivery
  
  “Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air to air missiles, is a feature of all F35s”.
   

• The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s future engine growth
  
  The potential for growth in the F35’s powerplant is far from limited. As a matter of fact, research into variable bypass engine technology has made the F35 a prime candidate for early implementation.
  
  Pratt and Whitney have already proposed F135 Growth Options 1 and 2, with the latter introducing variable bypass technology that has the potential to decrease fuel burn by up to 20% and increase thrust by up to 15%. This would improve the jet's thrust to weight ratio from 1.07 at 50% fuel and a full weapons load to over 1.2. A completely new powerplant derived from technology found in the GE XA100 and/or PW XA101 variable bypass engines is another distinct possibility that is being actively explored. 
   

• The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s combat ceiling
  
  It is not less than 45,000ft as the table claims, but greater than 50,000ft.
   

• The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s RF stealth features
  
  - The ZOCT’s description of the F35’s stealth features as “partial” is based on the disingenuous claim that its stealth shaping works best from the forward aspect, and is less effective in the beam and aft sectors. What APA neglects to acknowledge is that this is true for ALL the stealth aircraft in the table.
  
  - In reality, both the F22 and F35 are all-aspect VLO designs, optimised to defeat the shorter wavelength fire control radars that are typically used to guide anti-aircraft missiles. Their actual radar cross-section values are of course extremely classified, but those few individuals that DO know what they are have long described them as being very comparable between the two aircraft.
  
  - It is important to note that the ZOCT also completely neglects the vital importance of stealthy sensors and emissions control (EMCON) for stealth aircraft. Compared to the other aircraft in the table, the F35 has extremely sophisticated EMCON and passive sensing capabilities (LPI/LPD radar modes, MADL datalink, passive IR based MAWS, AN/ASQ-239, long range EOTS IRST) that are not adequately accounted for.
   

• The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s non-RF stealth features
  
  The F35’s non-RF stealth features are at least as sophisticated as those found on any of the other aircraft in the table and probably superior to most, if not all (with rough parity perhaps, to the F22). They include:
  
  - The use of divertless supersonic inlets with serpentine inlet ducts to block the line of sight to the engine’s hot interior from the forward hemisphere.
  
  - The use of fuselage air “scoops” to mix cooler outside air with the engine exhaust so as to rapidly cool it and in turn reduce the IR signature of the engine plume
   

  - The use of onboard fuel as a coolant alongside IR suppressant coatings (p4) to reduce the IR signature of the airframe itself
  
  - Recessed positioning of the nozzle so that the jet’s tailfins block a direct line of sight to it in all but the aft-most sector.
   

  - The use of a serrated nozzle derived from the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN) program to further reduce the signature of the engine and assist with mixing cool air with the exhaust plume (p4). Note that this fundamental design approach has been subsequently replicated in new nozzles proposed for the J20, J31, Su-57 and Su-75. 
   

• The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal fuel.
  
  The amount of fuel the F35 carries is irrelevant on its own. Being able to fly further for longer is certainly advantageous though. Hence, the relevant stat here is range, and the range of the F35 is comparable to that of the F22 that APA endorses. Again, this will only improve with planned enhancements to the F35’s powerplant.
   

• The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal hard point stations
  
  New F35s will have 6 internal hard points with the Sidekick weapons bay modification, not 4 as the ZOCT claims.
   

• The ZOCT over-emphasises arbitrary aerodynamic features 
  
  It is true, for example, that the F35 does not feature super cruise or thrust vectoring, but neither feature is a requirement for its specified mission set. The general consensus is that the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16. Unlike either of those aircraft, however, the F35’s ability to carry all of its weapons, EW gear and sensors internally means that it maintains its aerodynamic performance at full combat loads. Current indications are that this kinematic profile is extremely capable.
   

• Due to its flawed binary design, the ZOCT gives equal weighting to features that are not "equal".
  
  Compare, for example, TVC to VLO. APA have long claimed that non-TVC teen series fighters like F16 and F/A18 variants (along with the F35) ought to be an easy meal for a late-model TVC equipped Flanker, especially in the low speed BFM domain where TVC should be most useful. After years of DACT conducted with Flankers of this type, though, the advantage provided by TVC may not be nearly as decisive as APA would have us believe: 
  
  Legacy Hornet Beats TVC Su-30MKM 3-0 in BFM

  
  In reality, BFM is a highly nuanced, complex artform that favours the pilot who is most effective at playing to the strengths of their own aircraft. TVC may be useful here, but it does not appear to be a panacea - pilot training, experience and skill seem to be the real differentiators. Now compare this to the well documented effect that VLO has on a tactical aircraft’s lethality and survivability and it becomes clear that the weightings allocated to each category in the ZOCT are deeply flawed:
  
  ""I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."
  
  “We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw the F-35A.”
  
  "Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there. Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle. It has nothing to do with their skill or technology. They're at such a technological disadvantage. I've seen guys in F-18s turn directly in front of me and show me their tails cause they have no idea I'm there. It aggregates to a completely inept response to what we're doing in the air. People are so hellbent on shooting down the stealth fighter that they invariably make mistakes that I can exploit."  Retired US Marine Corps Maj. Dan Flatley
   

• The ZOCT is missing important data
  
  APA have also omitted a plethora of features that are just as (if not more) important than many of those listed in the ZOCT. For example
  
  - Multi-spectral sensors - this refers to having RF sensors PLUS infra-red, EO and laser range finding. This is a feature that the F35 has and the F22, for example, does not.
  
  - Spherical FLIR and missile cueing - AN/AAQ-37 provides the F35 with a permanent passive missile lock on every aircraft around it within visual range (and possibly further). This means the F35 can fire on an enemy aircraft regardless of where the F35’s nose is pointed or where the bandit is coming from - even if it is behind the F35. No other aircraft in the table (aside, possibly, for the J20 with its DAS clone) has an equivalent system.
  
  - Sensor fusion - this refers to the capacity of the aircraft’s onboard computers to collect, assimilate, analyse and present data from the aircraft’s sensors to the pilot in a way that streamlines their workload and enhances their decision making. This data can also be shared via;
  
  - An LPI, jam resistant, high throughput datalink - (eg. MADL on the F35 or the older IFDL on the F22) which, when combined with sensor fusion, allows for;
  
  - Cooperative Engagement - the high quality of the F35’s sensor fused targeting data combined with the capacity of the MADL datalink allows it to share targeting information with other platforms (eg. Aegis vessels, Army/USMC MLRS units or other F35s) and subsequently use it to fire on desired targets without relying on their own onboard sensors.
  
  - Cooperative EW - eg. cooperative jamming where members of a flight of aircraft can alternate/coordinate jamming emissions to enhance jamming effects and prevent hostile assets from pinpointing the source of the jamming.
  
  - RF threat triangulation and geo-location (p6) - eg. networking the passive ESM equipment on multiple members of a flight of aircraft to passively triangulate and geolocate threat emitters like SAM sites, ISR assets and fighter aircraft.
  
  - Cooperative IRST - eg. using a passive FLIR like EOTS cooperatively in conjunction with MADL provides another method of triangulating the location and range of hostile assets/aircraft without emitting any RF signals.
   

• Suffice it to say that the F35’s unique combination of features is extremely potent:
   

   

On 8/2/2020 at 2:43 AM, Calicifer said:

I had looked at all of your sources and they do not support what you say in your comment. 

Actually they absolutely do, you just didn't read them properly: 

- My first link clearly specifies a proposed fleet of 50 Raptors and 36 (heavily) upgraded F111's precisely as I said. The RAAF dismissed the proposal primarily on the grounds that the F22 was not suited to its needs, unavailable for export and entirely unaffordable to operate. Meanwhile, the obsolete, orphan F111 fleet had long-since become a maintenance hog that could not provide enough capability to justify its existence.

- APA's anti-F35 stance can be clearly traced back to their early (ridiculous) bid to directly profit from the AIR6000 program as the prime contractor. They are about as trustworthy and "independent" on this issue as an alcoholic running an AA meeting.

- The quotes I posted (from actual experts) are also readily available at my second link. You can find them here if you take the time (p42 onwards).

- The "ZOCT" is demonstrably ridiculous. A high-school level understanding of Science will tell you that displaying characteristics like an aircraft's kinematic, sensor and signature reduction performance in a binary table is not a valid way to present the relevant data because they are not binary variables.

Furthermore, the table itself is misleading, incomplete and fundamentally not connected to a rigorous or objective assessment of aircraft capability whatsoever.

Once again, real experts have pointed this out already.

On 7/31/2020 at 3:40 AM, Ramlaen said:

 

Air Power Australia is neither an official source or from 2020.

Oh it’s much worse than that. APA are a laughing stock in the Australian aviation community for good reason. When AIR6000 - the project to replace the RAAF legacy Hornet fleet - was first floated, APA advocated a mixed fleet of super-duper upgraded F111s and a buy of ~50 F22s. They then started a shell company called Australian Flight Test Services to submit this proposal for AIR6000 as the prime(!), with the intention of sub-contracting the work to Lockheed Martin (ha!). When their proposal was dismissed, they started trotting out bitter garbage like the flawed and arbitrary Zero-One Comparison Table (“ZOCT”) posted earlier.

True to form, this table was submitted as part of their “contribution” to a Senate hearing on the F35 acquisition only to be laughed out of the room once again. From ASPI:
 

Quote

The list of characteristics (APA incorrectly calls these 'metrics') of what constitutes a 5th generation aircraft (a term that is not well-defined in any case) is selective and omits or grossly simplifies several of the characteristics that are the strong points of the F-35. Some of the characteristics that are included are of debatable value.

From SRWF (RAAF Air Marshalls Eroll McCormack & Geoff Brown):
 

Quote

The table focuses excessively on flight performance qualities of 4th and 5th generation fighters. Over half the table relates to the relative flying qualities of the assessed aircraft. Even using these characteristics, a true comparison is only possible with access to classified data. For example, the table is factually incorrect with the data on flight characteristics presented on the F35 and Super Hornet. The performance of the Russian and Chinese aircraft is also misrepresented. However, even without access to classified data, open source reporting by the Indian Air Force on the deficiencies of the PAK50 give a good indication on the level of misrepresentation inherent in the table. There are videos available on the internet that point to the inadequate performance of both the J20 and J31. Chinese engine technology is many years behind their western equivalents. The ZOCT Table places significantly less emphasis on the 5th generation characteristics of Very Low Observability (VLO), sensor fusion and network interoperability, which are fundamental to the successful attainment of air superiority in a hostile contested environment. The table significantly underestimates the VLO of the F-35 and significantly overstates the Low Observability (LO) capabilities of the PAK50 and J20. Even open source reporting from Russia does not claim the same level of LO that APA states in the ZOCT Table. Another area where APA has significantly understated the F-35 and Super Hornet is in the performance of Active Electronically Scanned Array radars of each aircraft. The underlying data used by APA in their analysis of the competing radars is in error by a very significant margin and that leads to erroneous conclusions about the performance of the respective radars.

From the ADF/RAAF themselves:
 

Quote

The ZOCT is a simplistic aircraft attribute scoring table that is unsuited to convey how individual platform characteristics interact in an operational context to deliver capability outcomes. Further, the ZOCT is unsuited for identifying whether those aircraft, as part of a larger force structure, can meet Australia’s strategic requirements. Resolving this question requires useful capability assessments