F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[ADMk2]

I did not intend to cherry pick any side here and i did not suggest anything either then what is being said and claimed by all the sources provided,
in this topic but its the question if the JSF can do in todays real world what its suppose to do within its current tool set and intended role.
As you said Australia has some reasonable capabilities that it can bring in to a conflict on its own, and this applies for most JSF partners if not all.
But the JSF is being made with the mind set to combat dangers of yesterday, today and tomorrow as a multirole aircraft being able to do it "all"
But given the real world situation is it actually able to do it " all" or would a nation be better of having specialized air assets like the F22 for superiority, JSF as a defending aircaft and some sort of bomber for offensive actions?
The reason in say this is not because of the money involved to operate special air units but more witht he idea that to my understanding a mult-irole can do it all, without being top notch in everything.
example: Multirole can A2A? yes but its not the best, can it bomb? yes it can but its not best....its lets say a all-round

My point here would that not be better to overcome todays dangers? as you have more options at your disposal to overcome those dangers you are talking about?

It might be, but real world economic factors come into play too. How many nations can afford dedicated long range and large in number bomber fleets any more?

There are 3.

How many can afford to operate dedicated assets in each conceivable role? Again, maybe 3.

Once again because it seems some are having trouble comprehending it, no-one is suggesting the F-35 is the best solution for every single contingency or possibility.

 

[Beatmaster]

It might be, but real world economic factors come into play too. How many nations can afford dedicated long range and large in number bomber fleets any more?

There are 3.

How many can afford to operate dedicated assets in each conceivable role? Again, maybe 3.

Once again because it seems some are having trouble comprehending it, no-one is suggesting the F-35 is the best solution for every single contingency or possibility.

Point taken .
The point its not what i am suggesting its what the gross on the forum suggests, one cannot escape the fact that the typical JSF Lover portrays the JSF as a solution for every nation in every situation, and we just established that that is not always the case.
While on the other hand the typical JSF hater claims that costs and technical details are not that promising.
Just for the record i am neither of both...lol i am just looking at it from neutral pov.
The again i am just voicing a idea here.
And as you say economics play a vital role here as a JSF is NOT a 10 cents candy bar you buy, and this applies for the specialized air assets even more.
Which brings me back to the root of the question is the JSF capable of doing what its suppose to be doing within its current tool set or will the future demand that the design of the JSF is going to be overhauled to a more in depth upgrade and will make the current design a starting point from where new and better ideas take shape?
As it seems that the world in general is seeking for a cost efficient swiss army knive type of aircraft.
So if you take this into account, then one might say perhaps it would be more productive to stick with specialized assets till you either have a multirole replacement that either is better or at least equal to what is available now.
And for nations who have a relative small budget this might be a issue, however it would be for the US also a cost reducing effort to pull it off as 1 airplane could replace them all IF and only IF it shines in all areas and that is what the JSF does not do at this point agree?

Or am i totally wrong here?

 

[jack412]

Instead of asking simple questions like upgrades, which is easily found on the net as every 2 years for software and 4 years for hardware. Why don't you do as I suggested and go and read the interviews on SLD, the link I have previously given you and form some solid opinions based on facts

 

[ADMk2]

Point taken .
The point its not what i am suggesting its what the gross on the forum suggests, one cannot escape the fact that the typical JSF Lover portrays the JSF as a solution for every nation in every situation, and we just established that that is not always the case.
While on the other hand the typical JSF hater claims that costs and technical details are not that promising.
Just for the record i am neither of both...lol i am just looking at it from neutral pov.
The again i am just voicing a idea here.
And as you say economics play a vital role here as a JSF is NOT a 10 cents candy bar you buy, and this applies for the specialized air assets even more.
Which brings me back to the root of the question is the JSF capable of doing what its suppose to be doing within its current tool set or will the future demand that the design of the JSF is going to be overhauled to a more in depth upgrade and will make the current design a starting point from where new and better ideas take shape?
As it seems that the world in general is seeking for a cost efficient swiss army knive type of aircraft.
So if you take this into account, then one might say perhaps it would be more productive to stick with specialized assets till you either have a multirole replacement that either is better or at least equal to what is available now.
And for nations who have a relative small budget this might be a issue, however it would be for the US also a cost reducing effort to pull it off as 1 airplane could replace them all IF and only IF it shines in all areas and that is what the JSF does not do at this point agree?

Or am i totally wrong here?

The F-35 has 2-3 years of development to go before it is due to enter IOE&T - Initial Operational Evaluation and Testing, only then will we know if the F-35 meets it's operational requirements.

However the folks who are building this thing are the folks who built the F-22A, the F-117 and the F-16. The folks who designed the requirements and specs this thing is being built to meet are the USAF, USN and USMC primarily, all of whom have a pretty good track record of knowing what they need from their airpower. This company and the intended users, have afforded this program the most amount of resources of any military project ever.

I'd say that's a pretty fair track record of building successful fighters and strikers and a solid testing base to ensure it does and these give good reasons upon which to base a belief that this aircraft will meet it's requirements.

As to the F-35's capability in future years, it has an already in motion Block upgrade program planned, just like the F-16.

I assume you will concede the F-16 has managed to stay relevant during it's lifetime and meets it's requirements?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Regardless of who is attacking, the process is relatively the same.

1. The ingress route is analyzed for potential treats to the attackers.

2. Any viable threats are paired with appropriate weapons&tactics to neutralize them.

3. Popup threats are addressed as they appear.

4. Weapons are deployed on the final target.


The question is: How will the F-35 apply with the above 4 items.

1. Due to the VLO nature of the F-35 what constitutes a threat is diminished vs a 4th gen asset.

2. The F-35 can get closer to a threat before employing weapons thereby allowing smaller, cheaper, and more numerous weapons to be used to nullify there threat

3. Due to VLO there are less popups to deal with.

4. Due to VLO, the F-35 can get closer before employing weapons thereby allowing smaller, cheaper, and more numerous weapons to be used to destroy the target.

Overall these benefits allow for a smaller package to get through to achieve the same success ratio.

This scenario also benefits from the increased ability to ID threats due to better SA, shared EA, etc that the F-35 brings to the table.

 

[Todjaeger]

Regardless of who is attacking, the process is relatively the same.

1. The ingress route is analyzed for potential treats to the attackers.

2. Any viable threats are paired with appropriate weapons&tactics to neutralize them.

3. Popup threats are addressed as they appear.

4. Weapons are deployed on the final target.


The question is: How will the F-35 apply with the above 4 items.

1. Due to the VLO nature of the F-35 what constitutes a threat is diminished vs a 4th gen asset.

2. The F-35 can get closer to a threat before employing weapons thereby allowing smaller, cheaper, and more numerous weapons to be used to nullify there threat

3. Due to VLO there are less popups to deal with.

4. Due to VLO, the F-35 can get closer before employing weapons thereby allowing smaller, cheaper, and more numerous weapons to be used to destroy the target.

Overall these benefits allow for a smaller package to get through to achieve the same success ratio.

This scenario also benefits from the increased ability to ID threats due to better SA, shared EA, etc that the F-35 brings to the table.

This is actually only half the equation, as the above deals with the F-35 as the attacker. IMO the situation is equally interesting if the F-35 is the defender.

1. The potential ingress routes for an attack are analyzed.

2. Appropriate sensors and weapons are paired and distributed to respond to such attacks.

3. Due to LO nature of F-35, as well as the employment of LPI radar, passive sensor suites and data fusion from onboard and offboard sensors, the F-35 can respond as a 'popup' threat before the attacking aircraft is even aware that the F-35 is there.

At a very basic level, air combat currently amounts to "see first, shoot first, win."

This is very much were work on 5th gen fighters come in. Work has been and is being done to improve the effectiveness of sensors to aid pilots in 'seeing first'. For similar reasons work is ongoing to fuse information being presented to pilots, both from onboard and offboard sensors systems. In fact, anything and everything which improves situational awareness aids the pilot in achieving 'see first.'

The other side of the coin, LO development work, is done to minimize or reduce one's opponent's ability to see you.

In the case of a system including the F-35 operating against system including 4th gen platforms, everything else being equal (AEW capabilities, comms, GBAD, weapon range and accuracy, etc) then the system which includes the F-35 would be expected to 'win'.

What countries need to examine and decide, based upon their respective defence needs, likely threat situations and budgetary flexibility, is whether or not these nations can afford to forgo an advantage against potential aggressors by not adopting a 5th gen fighter.

-Cheers

 

[SpudmanWP]

True, I was just answering the "F-35 as the attacker" side of the coin as it was the initial question.

 

[gf0012-aust]

there's also some fundamental detail being left out - and thats the danger of doing platform only assessments

there is (in an australian context), the recognised air picture, the common operatring picture, both strategic and tactical) and the theatre/joint picture

situational feeds are coming in from a stream of constant disparate sources from feeders that may not be remotely geographically close to the event - there is an extraordinary amount of material being passed around.

its the capacity of the JSF to be able to use, manage and manipulate those sources that no other fighter comes close to achieving - including the F-22. The only other assets that can pick up and contribute to a similar ISR/GIS/COP level are AWACs and their ISR kin

hence my frustration about other chat where discussing the plane on its own dumbs down the OODA loop to a point where its nonsensical

Its akin to discussing the P8's only in an ASW/BAMS sense. Partially but absolutely incomplete.

we are talking chalk and cheese here - hence continued references to what Gen4 manned shooters can bring to the table instead is absolutely ridiculous

 

[Todjaeger]

True, I was just answering the "F-35 as the attacker" side of the coin as it was the initial question.

I brought it up because another poster recently stated that F-35's were not needed being a given country would not be 'busting the door down' in the first 48 hours and therefore did not need a LO capability. Such thinking manages to neatly and IMO completely inaccurately disregard the abilities a LO platform can bring to defending ones airspace.

-Cheers

 

[Beatmaster]

I'd say that's a pretty fair track record of building successful fighters and strikers and a solid testing base to ensure it does and these give good reasons upon which to base a belief that this aircraft will meet it's requirements.

As to the F-35's capability in future years, it has an already in motion Block upgrade program planned, just like the F-16.

I assume you will concede the F-16 has managed to stay relevant during it's lifetime and meets it's requirements?

Thanks for the info, But as you said thats exactly my point, lets put aside the 4th and 5th gen things but look at it very basic, the F-16 has almost (If not the most) flight hours and combat proven record of all the planes.
The JSF on the other hand comes in a time and age where tech is relative easy to obtain due todays production and research capabilities that most nations have.
Now from a aggressor POV the F-22 was / is a night mare to fight against, and now there is a new chief in town called JSF.
Its only save to assume that rival nations will either develop some sort of bird that can counter the JSF and F22 or they are going to invest in anti air assets / radar and such.
Back then when the F-16 was made things where pretty much clear cut, but today we got all kind of new powers that have been closing the technological gab between east and west and then one must ask: Is the JSF going to last 25 years or does it become neutralized within the next few years?
Ask yourself the question would the rest of the world who does not operate the JSF going to allow to put them selfs at risk by NOT countering the dangers that the JSF and F-22 might pose to them?
Thats what i am trying to say.
Its not that the JSF is bad, or that it does not have a future, but if this bird is going to be that good (Judging from the posts, links and details) then it will cause some serious concerns to those who do not have and never will have that bird.
So its only save to assume that something will be done within the capabilities of a nation to meet this danger.
See what i mean?

 

[Todjaeger]

The JSF on the other hand comes in a time and age where tech is relative easy to obtain due todays production and research capabilities that most nations have.
Now from a aggressor POV the F-22 was / is a night mare to fight against, and now there is a new chief in town called JSF.
Its only save to assume that rival nations will either develop some sort of bird that can counter the JSF and F22 or they are going to invest in anti air assets / radar and such.

Something very worth noting here, and it does not apply just to LO platforms, the F-35, or anything else.

Yes, there are significant technological developments which have occurred, and keep occuring every day. However, there is a significant amount of time, fiscal cost and effort involved in achieving practical applications for technological developments. This applies to military/naval even more so, since what is an acceptable amount of ruggedness and reliability in a civilian or commercial system is typically insufficient for military/naval purposes.

Therefore, while yes, platforms like the F-22 and F-35 can be countered by developing and adopting the proper strategies & tactics, systems and platforms, potential hostiles need to invest time, money and effort in doing so, and even then whatever gets put into service might or might not be effective. And all the while, the F-35 users will be further developing their platforms and systems in an effort to keep ahead of the developmental curve of their opponents.

-Cheers

 

[colay]

I brought it up because another poster recently stated that F-35's were not needed being a given country would not be 'busting the door down' in the first 48 hours and therefore did not need a LO capability. Such thinking manages to neatly and IMO completely inaccurately disregard the abilities a LO platform can bring to defending ones airspace.

-Cheers

Add to this, I think that the concept of " busting down the door" has evolved further to the realization that the threat, particularly from mobile and camouflaged SAM systems, may persist long after the initiation of hostilities. They would continue to pose a threat thus highlighting further the value of the F-35's ability to operate in such an environment and contributing significantly to the creation of a current and accurate common operating picture of the battle space that will benefit all other stakeholders in the fulfillment of the overall mission.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Therefore, while yes, platforms like the F-22 and F-35 can be countered by developing and adopting the proper strategies & tactics, systems and platforms, potential hostiles need to invest time, money and effort in doing so, and even then whatever gets put into service might or might not be effective. And all the while, the F-35 users will be further developing their platforms and systems in an effort to keep ahead of the developmental curve of their opponents.

-Cheers

there's some other factors at play here as well.

there's an assumption that countries have gripped up the fundamental shifts and changes in doctrine that are occurring, and in new concepts for fusing those warfighting capabilities into a coherent response.

its pretty clear that a significant number of countries have not made transition even from the gen 1 RMA concepts first demonstrated in the late 90's - you cannot just jump hurdles and transition from the traditional pre gulf war airwarfare model and suddenly develop competencies in managing a joint tactical and strategic warfighting operating solution.

it beggars belief that anyone think that you can just transition to these capabilities and develop counter solutions when the basics are not in place in the first placed.

this dumbing down of how countries can "counter" LO assets and timer jump to viable contratry warfighhting position beggars belief - we are already seeing countries which were dismissive of the benefits of LO and changes to the entire GIS/INT contribiution model rapidly trying to play catchup - and we're not talking about bolivia or belgium etc but countries that aspire to be near peer players.

doctrine for LO has changed in the last 2 years - countries with no comprehension of fundamental systems changes are not going to be able to walk in with counter orbat and doctrine solutions if they can't appreciate how its even been done now - let alone 2020-2030

 

[gf0012-aust]

Add to this, I think that the concept of " busting down the door" has evolved further to the realization that the threat, particularly from mobile and camouflaged SAM systems, may persist long after the initiation of hostilities. They would continue to pose a threat thus highlighting further the value of the F-35's ability to operate in such an environment and contributing significantly to the creation of a current and accurate common operating picture of the battle space that will benefit all other stakeholders in the fulfillment of the overall mission.

the "busting down the door" solutions are no longer kinetic.

there are some basic concepts that are being ignored in the traditional blood lust "kill the enemy" discussions.

detection, deterrence, distraction, deflection, destruction

we need to move away from the door busting mentailty. that model was changed in 1999. we're a physical generation and probably 4 doctrine generations away from that mindset in 2012.

 

[Marc 1]

Thanks for the info, But as you said thats exactly my point, lets put aside the 4th and 5th gen things but look at it very basic, the F-16 has almost (If not the most) flight hours and combat proven record of all the planes.
The JSF on the other hand comes in a time and age where tech is relative easy to obtain due todays production and research capabilities that most nations have.

So which countries have fielded their initial VLO bird in significant numbers? What was that? One? That would be because even companies and countries that have been at the cutting edge of aviation for the past 100 years (Brits, German's French and for the past 60 years the Russians) haven't fielded the first gen VLO airframe yet (although there is one UAV I am aware of that the Germans are nearly finished development of)

Have you ever wondered why the US gave up the quest for speed 60's/70's (epitomised by SR-71, Valkyrie etc) and ceded the manourvrability quest in the 70's/80's to the Russians? The Russians continued to push along with these concepts resulting in the highly powered extremely fast and agile airframes that are probably kinematically better than F-15, Tornado, EF, and F-16. Why were the US not developing super F-15's with vectoring thrust/forward canards and double the horsepower in that same period as a counter? Because they put their efforts toward a game change technology. Why do you need to do Mach 2.9 everywhere and pull 10g sustauined turns when you are 'invisible'? The most technologically advanced most dedicated to high defence spending western nation has spent the last 25 years refining this LO tech. This is just my interpretation of what I have seen.

Based on the above, how difficult do you think it will be for a nation with a lower technological and monetary base to emulate this LO tech to the same degree? I guarantee it's not just a few years.

Now from a aggressor POV the F-22 was / is a night mare to fight against, and now there is a new chief in town called JSF.
Its only save to assume that rival nations will either develop some sort of bird that can counter the JSF and F22 or they are going to invest in anti air assets / radar and such.
Back then when the F-16 was made things where pretty much clear cut, but today we got all kind of new powers that have been closing the technological gab between east and west and then one must ask: Is the JSF going to last 25 years or does it become neutralized within the next few years?
See what i mean?

Even if it is only the next 5 years (and that's assuming the F-35 and the systems it fights with are also not upgraded at all) -this is what warfare is all about. You develop a new doohicky, the enemy develops a countermeasure. I'd be feeling very shortchanged if I were an airforce now that did not give me the best bird to sit my butt in.

 

[Beatmaster]

So which countries have fielded their initial VLO bird in significant numbers? What was that? One? That would be because even companies and countries that have been at the cutting edge of aviation for the past 100 years (Brits, German's French and for the past 60 years the Russians) haven't fielded the first gen VLO airframe yet (although there is one UAV I am aware of that the Germans are nearly finished development of)

First of all let me say that i agree with all you said ok? So no debate there, but there is one particular game changer that you forgot or left out.
The US has been for the past 50 years the knowledge center of the world, the amazing list of patents and innovations that the US has is just incredible.
Same goes for Europa as both have a innovation record that makes you drool.
However in terms of technological knowledge and possession of such knowledge is not limited to the US alone, as there are enough western and not western nations that have pretty much the same tech level as the US but choose not to field them as they might lack the cash or the infrastructure for it. (Or simply no need for it)
Its true that the US has fielded game changing technology, BUT one mistake that the US has been making the past 20 years is to think that their technological achievements are way past anyone else.
This is simply not true, infact the past 10 years most European nations have come to the same tech level as the US or even go beyond it.
Knowledge was in the old days clear cut and pretty much limited to the US, but today knowledge is worldwide and the US no longer has the sweet position where they can feel comfortable. Nations are catching up and catching up fast....simple as
The only thing that the US still has is a incredible infrastructure and production capability that allows the US to start any program they like.
Other nations do have the knowhow and perhaps the money to start a project of their own, but they lack the infrastructure and production network, but give it a few years and that will change as well.
So not fielding technology does not mean that one nation does not have it or cannot develop.
As the old saying goes: Today the teacher is being surpassed by its student.
And this is actually something good and a honorable thing, on the other hand it also shows the clear changes in the world and the diminishing of the US potential.
Nations like Germany, UK, France (And some other nation within the EU), Russia, China, Japan, South Korea (Just to call some potent nations) could research, develop and produce virtually everything that the US produces if they wish to do so.
It would cost them a pretty penny and their infrastructure needs some serious changes but they do have the knowledge available.

Also one major factor is, the US is a ally of the EU for how long? 60 years? if not more and we are partners as well, so why would the EU setup such infrastructure for research and such if this is already in place in the US? So we only contribute in research and money so its natural that most tech comes from the US i think.

Cheers

 

[Marc 1]

Based on the above, how difficult do you think it will be for a nation with a lower technological and monetary base to emulate this LO tech to the same degree? I guarantee it's not just a few years.

Read this again, then read what you have replied below.

However in terms of technological knowledge and possession of such knowledge is not limited to the US alone, as there are enough western and not western nations that have pretty much the same tech level as the US but choose not to field them as they might lack the cash or the infrastructure for it. (Or simply no need for it)
Its true that the US has fielded game changing technology, BUT one mistake that the US has been making the past 20 years is to think that their technological achievements are way past anyone else.
This is simply not true, infact the past 10 years most European nations have come to the same tech level as the US or even go beyond it.
Knowledge was in the old days clear cut and pretty much limited to the US, but today knowledge is worldwide and the US no longer has the sweet position where they can feel comfortable. Nations are catching up and catching up fast....simple as
The only thing that the US still has is a incredible infrastructure and production capability that allows the US to start any program they like.
Other nations do have the knowhow and perhaps the money to start a project of their own, but they lack the infrastructure and production network, but give it a few years and that will change as well.

Infrastructure and production network. Airbus? plenty of euro infrastructure and production network there. Even if I accept your premise that the Euro's are capable of designing and building the next F-22 right now (and that's maybe plausible in terms of knowledge) - why haven't they? The answer is money. So, if the Euro's with their industrial base and knowledge and combined purchasing power have not, and they are the 'good guys' - then where does that leave the 'bad guys'? I'd guess a minimum of a decade behind?

That neatly circumvents you asserting that VLO tech is only going to hold an advantage for only a few years.

 

[Beatmaster]

Read this again, then read what you have replied below.

Infrastructure and production network. Airbus? plenty of euro infrastructure and production network there. Even if I accept your premise that the Euro's are capable of designing and building the next F-22 right now (and that's maybe plausible in terms of knowledge) - why haven't they? The answer is money. So, if the Euro's with their industrial base and knowledge and combined purchasing power have not, and they are the 'good guys' - then where does that leave the 'bad guys'? I'd guess a minimum of a decade behind?

That neatly circumvents you asserting that VLO tech is only going to hold an advantage for only a few years.

Not trying to be funny, but how the hell can you compare the Airbus infra and production to the massive infrastructure that the US as a nation has? thats a drop on the hot plate man....
In regards to money the EU has enough money to pull a project off even during the crisis and if they do not have it they borrow it, just like the US did. However i agree money is a serious factor.
And what makes you think that the Euro's cannot develop a next F-22? what do you think that the Euro's are still playing with sticks and stones? or we live in caves and dance the raindance around the fire?
The problem is neither money or skills...the main problem is the EU is not one body....to much politics and to much i want this and i want that ....before the EU has all the heads pointing to the same goal and agrees to something the next F100000 comes out of the US production line...lol.
Another difficulty is national competition within Europe and attempts to preserve national skills rather than pool them. However, there are changes under way that might constitute steps towards the establishment of a more coordinated European
However the EU as a coalition can rival the US in development and if they lack behind then this gap can be closed faster then you think.
Infact lots of tech available in the US comes from the EU (And vice versa)
So i believe that they could develop a 5th gen bird if they wanted to.
It might take a bit longer or cost a bit more but the EU has everything it needs to do so if they would wish for it. Small boys get big sooner or later.
Why they did not do it? good question beats me.... But on the other hand look how many nations have their hand into the JSF and doing their part based upon their skill set....
So lets assume that : Germany, France, UK, Netherlands, Danmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece to call the main ones and obviously the rest of the EU would combine their knowledge you would have a mighty rich knowledge pool to tap from which would be a serious starting point to make a next gen...

About the bad guys i can say this, the west has always tried to keep a certain level of research, production and development. We have seen that eastern nations did not always do as good as the west has done the past 50 years.
So does that mean east cannot do it? no they just need some time to sort them selfs out, china is a example of that so is Japan, S-Korea and Taiwan.....or where do you think your microchips come from?
Their knowledge base is growing and growing fast, look at their civilian programs and how innovative they are? i know this is not military but it does give you a serious indication about their capabilities which are growing fast.
However i do agree on the fact that the US does have a edge over the EU in certain aspects but the huge gap that use to be there between the US and EU is no more, and the Eu is catching up really fast...as in most aspects the EU is on the same level as the US...

 

[Vivendi]

Thanks to the pro's for raising this discussion to a higher level, I just wanted to remind everybody that there may still be some questions around the F-35 and those are NOT technically related but rather related to the economy of purchasing and operating the F-35.

As an example, consider Norway. To keep the defence budget at an "acceptable" level, we will have just one air base* in the future; the number of F-35 has been reduced; the F-35 training hours have been reduced.

All these minor things may have a negative effect on the capabilities that in the end can be delivered. And the above-mentioned actions to reduce costs have been decided now, a decade before the bulk of the F-35 has been delivered. What if there are new delays, and further cost increases in the coming years? Other parts of the Defence have been cut to a degree that does not allow further cutting, thus, if F-35 costs should raise further it could potentially have a detrimental effect on the overall defence capabilities.

Note I am not saying that there are other, better alternatives, the F-35 is the only realistic alternative since there are no other "5. gen" western platforms becoming available in the mid-to-near future. I just wanted to point out that there may still be some reasons to be concerned regarding the F-35 program.


*yes the F-35 is lethal in the air, but how dangerous is it when on the ground? If an enemy succeeds in taking out that one air base he has eliminated the Norwegian Air Force. Quantity and redundancy are also important parameters.

 

[Beatmaster]

...

1990-2010 - Fifth generation fighters use advanced integrated avionics systems to provide the pilot with a complete battlespace awareness, and use of low observable "stealth" technology. The F-22 and F-35 were the first fifth generation fighters, with Russia following with the Mikoyan Gurevich MFI prototype and the Sukhoi PAK-FA, and China with the J-20.

source:

Uhmmm question what happened to the F-22 and JSF as being the only 5th gen aircrafts? seems there is the:
Mikoyan Gurevich MFI prototype (Cancelled)
Sukhoi PAK-FA (Operational with India and Russia)
J-20 China (Operational???)

Back to the initial question: Who said that others cannot develop their own 5th gen?

Btw is this info about the J-20 true?

It claims to have F-22, F35 and Miko G stolen tech....