An army consisting exclusively of F-35 vs old generation jets could decimate all enemy jets without losing a single F-35.
It's the same with modern tank vs old tanks. Those old tanks can't penetrate the armor of modern tanks.
Maybe ... in the air ... if the numbers are the same ... if all of those F-35s are able to fly ... if the other side doesn't have a significant SAM capability ... if if if. In a realworld battle between armies the air-to-air capacity of fighters is a small part of the battle. Most will try to defeat the other's aircraft using ground assets, missiles/manpad. Ideally you take out aircraft in their hangars. A single well-placed artillery shell can take out a dozen F-35s in a hangar. A single frogfoot can destroy any F-35 that is low on fuel/ammo/speed after engaging a couple flankers. Realworld combat is messy. A pack of crows can take down an eagle.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-...
> while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air combat
In fact I would say if such an encounter were ever to happen, due to rule of engagements, a dogfight would be more likely than a BVR engagement (and likely to end without a single shot fired).
The F-35 can see and shoot down the F-16 with radar-guided missiles in BVR well before the latter is even aware the F-35 is in the area.
Dogfighting is minimally relevant to modern air combat for nuclear-armed nations. Things would have to be going extraordinarily badly in a war for the brass to start deciding to send their exceedingly expensive fifth-gen stealth fighters into dogfight coin tosses.
Hell, even an A-10 is a surprisingly effective dogfighter against modern fighters. The fighters have speed but the Warthog has an extremely tight turning radius and far better low-speed maneuverability, both of which allow it to stay inside the opponent’s “bubble” (the area inside which a turning jet can’t ever manage to point its nose). If the A-10 can keep it to a one-circle fight it will win handily. A fighter will often have to rely on a “boom and zoom” tactic (where it disengages, gains distance, and turns back around for a guns pass) but that can be quite low probability of kill and still be relatively risky if the A-10 has friendlies in the area feeling it location information.
But just like the situation already being discussed, this is for all practical purposes completely irrelevant. A flight of F-16s would engage and destroy a flight of A-10s from miles away with AMRAAMs and it would never have a chance to transition to an up-close dogfight.
what's stopping the f-16 from turning around and going cold as soon as it hears a lock or senses enemy radar?
Either way, if the enemy turns and flees, from your perspective you’ve won the engagement. Whatever their purpose in the area was (SEAD, strike, air superiority, etc.) has been subverted.