IDN TAKE: Why India Should Buy the F-35 Lightning II

[Immanuel]

Regarding dogfighting capabilities of F22 Raptor, please read the following:
1) http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22...toring-raptor-typhoon-eurofighter-2013-2?IR=T
2) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...ses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

In first-ever participation of Su-30 MKI in Red Flag 2008 (where F22 did not participate), the following was the observation: http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/03/10/dissecting_a_dogfight_sukhoi_vs_usaf_at_red_flag_2008_33623

1) "The Su-30MKI’s powerful Russian-made NIIP-BARS radar was operating only in the training mode which limited the sensor’s range and spectrum of capabilities. The self-imposed radar restrictions prevented US snoops from "mapping" the high-tech radar. But other restrictions were dictated by the hosts, Fulghum writes.

2) The Indians were barred from using data-links, chaff and flares. When they were targeted by surface to air missiles, they were shot down. There was no data picture in the cockpit to help IAF pilots’ situational awareness so the work load on the aircrews was high. Also, the IAF’s most powerful air-to-air missile, the R-77, was not simulated in the exercises."

3) The colonel wrongly assessed the Sukhoi’s rate of turn at 22-23 degrees but he also made the startling revelation that the Raptor’s was 28 degrees. Did he unwittingly reveal classified information? At any rate, the Sukhoi’s rate of turn – with thrust vectoring – is considerably superior at 35 degrees.
It is acknowledged in aviation circles the Flanker is a class above the F-15. In Fornof’s own view a well-flown F-15 can trouble an F-22; so a properly flown Flanker can potentially kill a Raptor in a knife fight.

You mis-understand me. The F-22 still remains undisputed king of the ring, it has killed the EF, Rafale, numerous times. Sure a Rafale got a dogfight kill of the F-22 and a EF got the same but in all engagements the F-22 even in dogfights has had plenty of kills on both. Sure it has been shot down a few times by SH, some F-16s in BVR but, the kill vs being killed ratio was always in favor of the F-22, there really isn't a doubt here. The F-22 will always have the advantage while coming into a fight till perhaps the PKFA comes along. As for the MKI, sure it is the unparalleled dogfight king and sure it can run circles around the F-22, the F-22 will still have serious advantage over the MKI in any fight. The point here dogfighting is essentially a piloting skill, the most creative pilot wins. The F-35 pilot will have a serious sensory and situational awareness advantage while going into knife fight but if he isn't creative, he can easily be killed.

I never said during red flag the MKI went against the F-22, it was the over-all best performer but it had several handicaps and still got shot down in SAM kills, during IndraD, the EF had BVR kills on it too. Sure the MKI during exercise always had many handicaps but it is what it is.

 

[Immanuel]

Regarding dogfighting capabilities of F22 Raptor, please read the following:
1) http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22...toring-raptor-typhoon-eurofighter-2013-2?IR=T
2) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...ses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

In first-ever participation of Su-30 MKI in Red Flag 2008 (where F22 did not participate), the following was the observation: http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/03/10/dissecting_a_dogfight_sukhoi_vs_usaf_at_red_flag_2008_33623

1) "The Su-30MKI’s powerful Russian-made NIIP-BARS radar was operating only in the training mode which limited the sensor’s range and spectrum of capabilities. The self-imposed radar restrictions prevented US snoops from "mapping" the high-tech radar. But other restrictions were dictated by the hosts, Fulghum writes.

2) The Indians were barred from using data-links, chaff and flares. When they were targeted by surface to air missiles, they were shot down. There was no data picture in the cockpit to help IAF pilots’ situational awareness so the work load on the aircrews was high. Also, the IAF’s most powerful air-to-air missile, the R-77, was not simulated in the exercises."

3) The colonel wrongly assessed the Sukhoi’s rate of turn at 22-23 degrees but he also made the startling revelation that the Raptor’s was 28 degrees. Did he unwittingly reveal classified information? At any rate, the Sukhoi’s rate of turn – with thrust vectoring – is considerably superior at 35 degrees.
It is acknowledged in aviation circles the Flanker is a class above the F-15. In Fornof’s own view a well-flown F-15 can trouble an F-22; so a properly flown Flanker can potentially kill a Raptor in a knife fight.

You mis-understand me. The F-22 still remains undisputed king of the ring, it has killed the EF, Rafale, numerous times. Sure a Rafale got a dogfight kill of the F-22 and a EF got the same but in all engagements the F-22 even in dogfights has had plenty of kills on both. Sure it has been shot down a few times by SH, some F-16s in BVR but, the kill vs being killed ratio was always in favor of the F-22, there really isn't a doubt here. The F-22 will always have the advantage while coming into a fight till perhaps the PKFA comes along. As for the MKI, sure it is the unparalleled dogfight king and sure it can run circles around the F-22, the F-22 will still have serious advantage over the MKI in any fight. The point here dogfighting is essentially a piloting skill, the most creative pilot wins. The F-35 pilot will have a serious sensory and situational awareness advantage while going into knife fight but if he isn't creative, he can easily be killed.

I never said during red flag the MKI went against the F-22, it was the over-all best performer but it had several handicaps and still got shot down in SAM kills, during IndraD, the EF had BVR kills on it too. Sure the MKI during exercise always had many handicaps but it is what it is.

 

[Chinmoy]

F-35 is not good as per DFI super duper experts and it become useless and J-20 become matter of concern......!

Great, what next for DFI.....!

The reality is Russian air force has already reduced their order for fifth gen aircrafts.



If a MKI become vulnerable against J-20 , then I wonder what will happen when our DFI's resident super duper aircraft experts wanted to send Mig-29 against F-35.

And you don't see any difference among Northrop Grumman and other Chinese and Russian manufacturers. Don't you......!

US has already made few of fifth gen aircrafts as of today, where as Chinese and Russians are new in it.




Ever you heard something like 'first see first kill' terms in air combat.......!

When Indian defence portals talked about F/A-18 in early days of MMRCA tender, they also published these words in their articles -----> 'nothing dare to come near this aircraft'.

I am not sure about you, but I still remember I read it.

And that was for F/A-18, forget about F-35.

@Zebra if you have followed my post, I had never mentioned that F-35 is not good. I am in for any sort of technical innovation and development.

Here I think PAK-FA does have a upper hand till now on F-35.

Consider what I have written here. I did choose only one aspect, maneuverability, in my writing. I have not gone into other technical details, as I am not aware of what it does hold. But yeah I do know that much that it would act as a small command platform in its JSF role. But when you do come to its main selling point of being a stealth fighter, I am skeptic of its ability to carry forward its fight in one to one role.

When you compare Russia and America in field of Aeronautics, then I would just want to point my finger on two points. First, although Sikorsky Aircraft is an American company, but the man behind it is an Ukrainian former USSR). Secondly even NASA is collaborating with Russian counterpart to develop a hybrid space craft engine, instead of going with their NATO partners. But here I don't want to start a debate on who is better or who is not. When it does come to technology, each and every one is unique in his/her own way. Be it a American, Russian, Chinese, Israeli or Pakistani, technological innovation and development is a welcome step.

Right now I think countering J-20 is bit more of a concern to us then countering a F-35. I do agree that US had been working on stealth for last 50/60 years and they have made quantum progress in this field. But you cant deny the fact that others too are catching up to the level slowly but surely.

As far as cutting down on the procurement numbers of T-50 is concerned, its not because of inferior technology, its because of the production cost. Per unit cost of T-50 is some where around 50 to 100 Million USD as per my knowledge, whereas F-35 costs you around 98 Million USD for version A, 104 Million USD on version B and 116 Million on version C. Now Russians did cut down on their demand due to this high cost and backtracking by India on the project, as per report. Even the cost of F-35 is too becoming a hard to swallow thing for US and other partners.

Now when it comes to see first and hit first concept comes into play, you should know that it works fine when you are up against a 3rd gen fighter. But with all the ECM and seekers coming into play, once you tag an enemy with your RADAR, be sure that he too is reading you and could tag you back based on the source. Moreover, you cant be sure that every time you release a missile at a Tango it would be a sure hit. Eventually it would come down to a hand to hand combat. Now you have to consider how much you are effective in it and how hard you could punch the opponent.

Now technically speaking both PAK-FA T-50 and F-35 Lightning are superb in their role and there is no question on it. But you cant define a fighter by its visibility alone. You would have to consider other factors too and have to compare them one by one. But as of now I think when it comes to maneuverability and one to one combat T-50 does hold an edge on F-35.

 

[Kharavela]

F35 can turn, it can run, it can climb, and it can fight, it's an awesome aircraft and it's suits well within nato's future doctrine in mind.

The US defence force has discovered its F-35 program is a trillion dollar blunder
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/the-us-defence-force-has-discovered-its-f-35-program-is-a-trillion-dollar-blunder/story-fnpjxnlk-1227423586922

Still Russian air force are not buying many of those.

Might be true because of present Russian financial constraints, but unlike some of the NATO allies they have not abandoned it. Take a look

http://aviationweek.com/defense/australia-abandons-proposal-order-f-35b

http://defensetech.org/2015/07/10/australian-navy-cancels-order-for-the-f-35b-joint-strike-fighter/
:hippo:

 

[Immanuel]

Hey I'm just an average taxpayer with an above average interest in defense issues who cares about where the taxpayer's money is being spent. I never claimed to be a know all expert. Also I don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that the F-35 is dead-weight. I just have some basic layman understanding of fighter aircrafts which I think is sufficient for even a civilian like me to point out something that is quite obvious.

Since I am one of those overnight sensation internet forumers who are beneath your holiness I hope you have the capacity to digest my viewpoint, Mr Self Proclaimed Expert.



1200km away? The best AWACS are limited to 400km. How on earth is 1200km possible that too for a small fighter aircraft sized radar? Ever heard of the concept of line-of-sight?



Totally incorrect since F-35 has yet to enter low rate initial production and all the advertised prices till date are future estimates which don't even take into account the engine cost.
Rafale is a stop gap measure meant for arresting our falling squadron strength in a short time frame and will never be the IAF's mainstay fighter. But this doesn't mean that I'm advocating the Rafale over LCA & PAK FA.



Well actually it would take more than a couple but technically it's possible. But that's not the point.
If India does end up acquiring the F-35 wouldn't USA equip Pakistan with the same to maintain parity? In that case all the hypothetical technological advantage comes to naught. Not to mention the Chinese J-31 and J-20 which will definitely end up in Pakistani inventory as a reactionary measure.

Conversely if India stays on course with PAK FA & AMCA, Pakistan might still end up getting the inferior J-31 but definitely not the more capable J-20. Also USA would have no concrete reason to sell F-35 to Pakistan and risk upsetting India.


Hey I said stealth is over-rated not that is unnecessary. Stealth is desirable but not at the expense of maneuverability/agility of which the same cannot be said for the F-35. Neither does it have full aspect stealth lof the F-22 Raptor nor the super-maneuverability of the Su-30MKI.
So when I say that it's just a bombtruck with above average sensors what's not to understand? If existing systems and under development indigenous platforms can provide similar or possibly superior capability at a fraction of the cost why is it so difficult to comprehend that F-35 is ill suited to our operational requirements as well as budget?
Also refer @Bahamut's 3 excellent posts #52 #53 & #54 where detailed technical analysis is given as to why the F-35's so called stealth at the expense of maneuverability/agility is ultimately useless. Let's hear your arguments against those.


Large numbers, no ToT, non critical spares? Who in their right mind could possibly advocate this? End of day do you want India to become America's client state?

Had you read my previous post carefully I had made it amply clear that it's fighter jet engine technology that's the prized catch not becoming a service center. Hub for non critical spares? Non critical as in what- waste management systems, canopy glass or landing gears? And how do such trivial items benefit India's technological & manufacturing base?


This is all typical company marketing literature.
Fact- F-35 has the worst cockpit visibility. What situational awareness are we talking about when the cockpit itself prevents our naked eyes from doing its very basic job? Dogfighting is all about keeping the enemy in your sights. Lose sight, lose the fight. If the cockpit blocks the pilot's all round vision what dogfighting advantage is being referred to?

Also what's with this contradictory statement? You extensively cite Lockheed Martin marketing literature, write an entire post explaining how F-35 would be a stealthy sensor avoiding head on confrontation instead preferring to launch sneak BVR attacks. And now all of a sudden F-35 becomes a world class dogfighter? F-35 is too poorly designed and too heavy to ever effectively dogfight. And since it's ultimately down to pilot skill who's to say that in capable hands a MiG-21Bison won't beat the F-35 10 out of 10 in every possible dogfight scenario.

F-35 cockpit ergonomics and sensor fusion will definitely be next gen but the same can be adapted to our existing fighter fleet. Just because your minivan has a fancy dashboard with expensive upholstery doesn't mean that it's better than my bare essentials sports car.

All I can say is that most arguments in favor of the F-35 is a blatant manipulation of facts when convenient. Looks like the gimmicks were from the other end all this while. Also better lose the condescending attitude.

Dead weight of the F-35 isn't an issue since FOC versions will have uprated engines.

Well I would suggest to research more. DAS can pick out rocket launches over 1200km away. Combined with the AESA the possibilities are quite extensive. As for price, they are correct, the Israelis are paying around 100 million per bird, not bad at all. As I said before if the Israelis are happy buying it, India needn't worry. The Life cycle cost of an F-35 is around 350 million over 55 years. Pretty decent considering the Rafale costs roughly 250 million over 40 years.


As for discussions over stealth, agility etc. well we can go round in circles but its known already the F-35 maneuvers like the F-16 in certain aspects & F-18 in others in its current form. FOC versions will have more raw power through uprated engines. All the agility in the world didn't help the F-22 from being shot down by a Rafale/ T-38/ SH or Rafale the by a F-4/MKI, F-16/F-15 by Mig-21 Bisons or the EFs by a MKIs. All the agility isn't dick if the pilot isn't creative. With a creative pilot you can have a Rafale shot down by a P-51 Mustang

All the crap about parity doesn't really matter the Russians have been doing with China for years, grow up and realize every nation is concerned most with self interests.

As for India becoming a client state, how does it matter. Have you been asleep for the last 8 years? 10 C-17s, 12 C-130Js, 22 Apache, 15 Chinooks, 12 P-8Is, potentially 16 S-70Bs. All with options for more we could end up seeing over 3-4 sqds of Apaches more, around 123+ MH-60s or S-70Bs, more Chinooks. There is talk of Chinook or Apache line in India. What about 125 Engines for Jag re-engine or 120+ GE engines for LCA Tejas. What about the LM2500 GE engines on the INS Vikrant. We already are a client state. In such short time if this doesn't show that we are a client then I don't understand what will.

Hahah bomb truck with above average sensors, name another aircraft save some AWACS that have such long range sensors with such specs. I never said it will be world class dogfighter, I only said the F-35 will have unparalled sensory and situational awareness when it comes flying and fighting. Cockpit visibility issue is due to large head rests, this will be fixed.

I don't see the IAF buying the F-35, but the Navy can order upto 80 in the future, not sure if Make in India could apply from small order like this. As for the PAKFA, even the Russians aren't giving anything more than 25% of the work share, we will buy 2-3 sds now off the shelf and assemble the rest around 100under make in India with some very basic tot if any.

This obsession with TOT needs to end, in today's prices its quite unaffordable as shown by the Rafale MRCA farce and it brings no value since even with MKI TOT we still can't make a proper home made fighter radar or engines and have had to rely on the Israelis for help. Even with all that availability was less than 50% till IAF/HAL got their act together.

 

[Kharavela]

The F-22 still remains undisputed king of the ring, it has killed the EF, Rafale, numerous times.

Please share source of your claim.

 

[Chinmoy]

1200km away? The best AWACS are limited to 400km. How on earth is 1200km possible that too for a small fighter aircraft sized radar? Ever heard of the concept of line-of-sight?

@manutdfan don't be so surprised. F-35 does have this capability. That's the reason it is termed JSF. Now DAS here does have two meaning Distributed Aperture System, which provides a 360 degree situational awareness to the pilot. In lay man term, you got eyes on your back and side too to know who is where. and it does have the capability to tune into another ground based DAS (Distributed Antenna System) which does increase its visible range. The ground based DAS could be anything from stationary to mobile RADARs.

 

[Kharavela]

As for discussions over stealth, agility etc. well we can go round in circles but its known already the F-35 maneuvers like the F-16 in certain aspects & F-18 in others in its current form. FOC versions will have more raw power through uprated engines. All the agility in the world didn't help the F-22 from being shot down by a Rafale/ T-38/ SH or Rafale the by a F-4/MKI, F-16/F-15 by Mig-21 Bisons or the EFs by a MKIs. All the agility isn't dick if the pilot isn't creative. With a creative pilot you can have a Rafale shot down by a P-51 Mustang

Instead of rhetorics, please share source for your claim pertaining to F-35 maneuvers like F-16 or F/A-18.

 

[apple]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/australia-abandons-proposal-order-f-35b

http://defensetech.org/2015/07/10/australian-navy-cancels-order-for-the-f-35b-joint-strike-fighter/
:hippo:

Both those stories are extremely poorly written and the second story's headline is just a plain lie.

The Royal Australian Navy never placed an order (neither would they be allowed to place, nor cancel an order) for the F35B. Neither did RAN, nor anyone else, propose an order.

The recently deposed ex Australian PM, Abbott, suggested that Australia should get fighters for it's two new transportation vessels. Abbott said a lot of stupid stuff, one the main reasons he got sacked, but that was one the stupidest. RAN has never indicated it wants to operate aircraft carriers, nor has anyone sensible suggested it would be a good idea.

 

[Immanuel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ter-ground-thanks-400-000-piece-headgear.html

The new version of the helmet that came out this year should also address over-all visibility more than any fighter ever before.

http://archive.defensenews.com/arti...sts-Proceed-Revealing-F-A-18-Like-Performance

F-35 has F-18 like performance with better turn rates and acceleration & corner speeds are at different part of the envelope. Moreover, F-35's high alpha performance is similar to the SH.

Moreover, people forget the aircraft is far from FOC, its obvious there are issues with an aircraft that is still undergoing testing. Post 2020, the F-35 should be more than fit for Indian service certainly for the IN. It isn't meant to be specialist in anything but a jack of all trades much like the Super Hornet and it will do it just fine.

 

[Immanuel]

The US defence force has discovered its F-35 program is a trillion dollar blunder
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/the-us-defence-force-has-discovered-its-f-35-program-is-a-trillion-dollar-blunder/story-fnpjxnlk-1227423586922

The F-35 which went up against the F-16 didn't have stealth coatings, it was not equipped with the weapons or the or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target. Also the outcome clearly mentioned that they were indeed validating the robustness of the existing control laws that was restricted certain portions of the envelope and also clearely showed that control laws of the aircraft can be further tweaked to improve maneuverability. The AF-2 clearly was heavily handicapped test aircraft. Read the articles below carefully.

http://xbradtc.com/2015/07/02/about-that-f-35-vs-f-16-dogfight/

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-f-35-was-not-beaten-by-an-f-16/?utm_source=TW

 

[charlie]

Agreed when you say it meets Nato's future doctrine which is BVR .
From the very starting it was aimed to meet requirements for all the forces which ideally cannot be met as there are many extremes.

not trusting anyone blindly but simple aero knowledge after spending 4.5 years in aerospace industry(I m no expert)
It is bulky ,it has a large cross section, its lacks speeds and acceleration are few points .

The stealth coating is too expensive and vulnerable.
the panel is so thin that a bullet can pass.


I doubt airforce would have gone for it .... Navy cud have.

Well if you worked in aerospace industry you know what happens when there are too many vendors supporting one system. In f35 case there are just too many vendors compared to f18 or f 22.

At the end of the day customer should be happy and in f35 case it's is almost there.

Bulky is the term you use, come on

 

[Pulkit]

Well if you worked in aerospace industry you know what happens when there are too many vendors supporting one system. In f35 case there are just too many vendors compared to f18 or f 22.

At the end of the day customer should be happy and in f35 case it's is almost there.

Bulky is the term you use, come on

Bulky is the correct term to use here .
yes most of buyers can be happy but is it 100% what was promised?

Having so many vendors will inceases the quality issues along with the assembly issues?
this will increase cost and wont be easy to have inventory of various parts....


Is every customer Happy????

 

[charlie]

"these are my personal views"

I don't think Bulky is the term you can use for any fighter, client exactly knew how it would look like before it was selected.

I will give you a idea of what happens generally in any project, Companies bids in really competitive way to win the contract.

In cases where project is not going according to their budget, they start blaming other vendors product for the shortcomings of a component, they don't even want to look in what's wrong they just assume if the other prototype are working fine then this is not their component fault.

OEM has different type of contract in some contract they would just buy the equipment from the vendor they would not negotiate for after sale support or to co-development with them so that all the features work (to cut cost). When they deploy the system the primary features work but the secondary doesn't again a new contract has to be negotiated with them. (huge cost and time overruns)


I know, above things might sound confusing but I cannot give specific example which would have made things more clearer.

F35 has 3 different Variants so it's not just one type of aircraft you have take that into consideration too.

F35 did have some cost & time overruns but at the end of the day I think everyone will be satisfied.

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=F-35_JSF

 

[Zebra]

Might be true because of present Russian financial constraints, but unlike some of the NATO allies they have not abandoned it. Take a look
http://aviationweek.com/defense/australia-abandons-proposal-order-f-35b
http://defensetech.org/2015/07/10/australian-navy-cancels-order-for-the-f-35b-joint-strike-fighter/
:hippo:

...............................................................................................

 

[pmaitra]

Bulky is the correct term to use here .
yes most of buyers can be happy but is it 100% what was promised?

Having so many vendors will inceases the quality issues along with the assembly issues?
this will increase cost and wont be easy to have inventory of various parts....


Is every customer Happy????

"these are my personal views"

I don't think Bulky is the term you can use for any fighter, client exactly knew how it would look like before it was selected.

I will give you a idea of what happens generally in any project, Companies bids in really competitive way to win the contract.

In cases where project is not going according to their budget, they start blaming other vendors product for the shortcomings of a component, they don't even want to look in what's wrong they just assume if the other prototype are working fine then this is not their component fault.

OEM has different type of contract in some contract they would just buy the equipment from the vendor they would not negotiate for after sale support or to co-development with them so that all the features work (to cut cost). When they deploy the system the primary features work but the secondary doesn't again a new contract has to be negotiated with them. (huge cost and time overruns)


I know, above things might sound confusing but I cannot give specific example which would have made things more clearer.

F35 has 3 different Variants so it's not just one type of aircraft you have take that into consideration too.

F35 did have some cost & time overruns but at the end of the day I think everyone will be satisfied.

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=F-35_JSF

I have a question for you guys.

Given the things both of you have mentioned, how come F-22 came out as an excellent platform, and F-35 turned out to be a very expensive disappointment?

I understand cost might be one issue.

 

[Bahamut]

@manutdfan don't be so surprised. F-35 does have this capability. That's the reason it is termed JSF. Now DAS here does have two meaning Distributed Aperture System, which provides a 360 degree situational awareness to the pilot. In lay man term, you got eyes on your back and side too to know who is where. and it does have the capability to tune into another ground based DAS (Distributed Antenna System) which does increase its visible range. The ground based DAS could be anything from stationary to mobile RADARs.

This thing will only work against poorly equipped air defense force .Any decent air defense force like China will try to jam this ability so the JSF is limited to its own DAS and other sensors .We have to take the worst case where our forces will operate in a electronical hostile environment where the enemy is trying to jam the communication and other active sensors.Add to that F 35 is going to be a maintenance headache just like the F 22 which for every hour of flight requires 22 hours of maintenance that is going to effective the availability of our force.It can carry only 4 medium range missile and no WVR missile in steath mode and as a bomber it can carry only 4 bombs which is small payload .IF a war break out against china and pak at the same time this plane is going to disaster .

 

[Bahamut]

I have a question for you guys.

Given the things both of you have mentioned, how come F-22 came out as an excellent platform, and F-35 turned out to be a very expensive disappointment?

I understand cost might be one issue.

F 22 was made only for air dominance role and it does that pretty good but as a multi role fighter due to it low payload and range it is next to useless plus it requires a lot of maintenance and its comes at a fly away cost of 150$ million and add the cost of maintenance brings it to around 400$million per piece. Plus it has a minor oxygen supply problem but over all as perform good for its role given there are good pilots and good ground crew keeping it in working condition.As per F 35 there were many horrible design compromise resulting in over complex machine .Plus it during the design F 35 it was assume that the adverse is dumb ,does not have any capable system ,will not try to jam it ,will not to find it and hence will not attack it.The problem is that there are many way to find a stealth aircraft from L band radar , to thermals and due to its low performance once found it easy kill.F 35 is like a swiss knife ,it can do many things but nothing good.

 

[Chinmoy]

This thing will only work against poorly equipped air defense force .Any decent air defense force like China will try to jam this ability so the JSF is limited to its own DAS and other sensors .We have to take the worst case where our forces will operate in a electronical hostile environment where the enemy is trying to jam the communication and other active sensors.Add to that F 35 is going to be a maintenance headache just like the F 22 which for every hour of flight requires 22 hours of maintenance that is going to effective the availability of our force.It can carry only 4 medium range missile and no WVR missile in steath mode and as a bomber it can carry only 4 bombs which is small payload .IF a war break out against china and pak at the same time this plane is going to disaster .

Now that is what I was saying in my previous posts regarding why we need to invest on T-50 rather then F-35. But the beauty of F-35 does lie in its ability to carry out electronic warfare along with conventional war. The scenario you mentioned holds true for any aircraft invading a strong air defence. But when you are on defensive role, it is quite opposite. As @Immanuel did mentioned earlier, it is a good platform in patches, but as a whole there is still reservations. You can't opt for an expensive platform keeping in mind only one aspect. You would have to look into it from all other aspect and test it on your criteria.

 

[Bahamut]

Now that is what I was saying in my previous posts regarding why we need to invest on T-50 rather then F-35. But the beauty of F-35 does lie in its ability to carry out electronic warfare along with conventional war. The scenario you mentioned holds true for any aircraft invading a strong air defence. But when you are on defensive role, it is quite opposite. As @Immanuel did mentioned earlier, it is a good platform in patches, but as a whole there is still reservations. You can't opt for an expensive platform keeping in mind only one aspect. You would have to look into it from all other aspect and test it on your criteria.

Its electronic warfare ability is not in its ability to jam enemy electronics but in its sensor fusion and net centric warfare and China has doctrine made specifically to counter that.Its ability to jam enemy radar is limited.As for T 50,it was made as a stealth fighter hunter as a result it has a lot of passive and active sensors along with jammers plus the performance so it more likely to survive .What we do get in F 35 is sensor fusion and ability to share the info with every one in real time and if put effort in AMCA it can have similarly performance.But since this the only strength of F 35 and against china it loses that strength.Plus there is the maintenance issue .The technical readiness of Su 30 fleet is 50% is the highest in our force but F 35 is such a complex machine ,10 times that of Su 30 that it technical readiness will never be greater then 15% that will be a problem.
the DOT&E Report on the F-35 program published in January 2015 determined that the plane has not, in fact, reached any of the nine reliability measures the program was supposed to achieve by this point in its development and that the Joint Program Office has been re-categorizing failure incidents to make the plane look more reliable than it actually is. Further, the complexity of maintaining the F-35 means that, currently, none of the Services are ready to keep it in working order and instead “rely heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds.” DOT&E found that the program achieved 61 percent of planned flight hours and that the average rate of availability was as low as 28 percent for the F-35A and 33 percent for the F-35B. The program created a new “modeled achievable” flight hour projection “since low availability was preventing the full use of bed-down plan flight hours.” According to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management, in FY2014, each non-test F-35 flew only 7.7 hours per month, which amounts to approximately one sortie every 5.5 days—for combat purposes, a sortie rate so low as to be crippling. Mean flight hours between removal (MFHBR) have increased, but are still only 59 percent to 65 percent of the required threshold. DOT&E found that mean corrective maintenance time for critical failures got worse for the F-35A and the F-35C over the last year. Structural cracking is also proving to be a recurring and enduring problem that is not yet resolved.