I wonder how this could work against the F35 etc when being flown by a country with greater manpower. EG if (for the sake of argument) China could put 10-20 of these in the air for every F35, could it win an air battle?
I don't think the mission for this plane is air-to-air. It would be at a huge disadvantage vs. the F-35 and F-22 in the range and sophistication of its radar and targeting. A ridiculous amount of the expense and software code is dedicated to radar, targeting, and communications on modern planes.
I don't think a WW2 style air battle will be seen again in our lifetimes; it'll be skirmishes and deniable warfare (eg Ukraine), one-sided obliterations of a weaker tech force on the ground (eg Iraq, Six Days War), counterinsurgency (no opposing air force at all, minor AA), or nuclear exchanges.
The nearest thing in recent history might be the Falklands war, in which some Argentine aircraft were shot down by missiles launched from British Sea Harriers.
As one example a combination of Korea going hot again and China wanting to maintain a buffer state at all costs.
Vietnam wasn't all that long ago, and there's no really good technological reason that couldn't happen again.
We're also reaching a technological stage where it doesn't necessarily take two superpowers to fight a proxy war. Could India and Pakistan fight a proxy war without superpower involvement with a substantial air war component? Technologically, sure.
As described in the article the Scorpion doesn't have any beyond visual range capability, only short range infrared missiles and guns. A fleet of Scorpions would only stand a chance if the opposing force ran out of long range missiles and if the Scorpions were able to get to close range. Even then it would likely be outclassed by the F-22's maneuverability.
I would imagine it depends a lot on the weapons systems. Air to air missiles would need to be able to stay locked and catch the F35, unless they were lucky enough to hit it with one of the canons. My money would be on the F35.
