It was a plane designed for the needs of the PVO and under the limitations of the technology of the time. The avionics suite was considered good for Soviet designs of the time, the reliability was good and the plane was generally considered safe. The Lazus-S datalink was quite advanced for the time, also its practical use turned to plane into something closer to a manned SAM than a interceptor in the classical sense.

The most serious danger for F-35 is the SH. The others are outsiders.

Indeed, it will take more cuts and more problems for the F-35 to fail, yet I am sure Boeing and Lockheed have something ready to go, should this happen. And a Silent Falcon could be quite interesting once, F-35 is out of trouble or once the armed forces realize that the F-35 will be too expensive to buy enough of them to keep the desired force strength.

I just wanted to point out that there is no technology problem to modernize the legacy designs, it is just a matter of all funding going into F-35.

Boeing will up-grade the F-15 as much as the SH, if the customers asks for it. Obviously the F-15SE never was an alternative to the tri-service JSF project, as JSF was meant to do carrier and VTOL ops, something no other aircraft can do.

Boeing´s eagerness to market the SH comes from two facts.

1. the USN seems to be the least committed service for F-35
2. The SH production line runs out by 2015, the F-15 is safe for 2 more years

Boeing will push both, if there is only a tiny chance that F-35 could be scrapped. Same as Lockheed will quickly have a Silent Falcon design, if the F-35 is cancelled.

Maybe I spend so much time supporting the F-35. Because so many members of this forum constantly attack it! Which, I guess is understandable being that Air Forces Monthly is a European based Forum. Plus, the fact that Types such as the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen will be long out of service when the Lightning is still going strong.;).

Well my main concern with the F-35 is numbers based on.

1. the fact that the USAF is currently not taking delivery of new fighter jets. The legacy fleet is heading for a cliff at which operational costs will rise, reducing the funds available for new air planes. Or units have to disband because there are not enough fighters available to operate and buy given a certain budget.

2. Numbers have their own charm. Even if you would have the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world, practically unbeatable, you still need a certain numbers to deploy your units. Add peacetime missions like training and air policing and your deployable force shrinks even more. And you need a certain number of deployable units, so that the soldiers do not become the limiting factor. 2 Sqn. of 12 aircraft will be hard pressed to deploy more then 6 aircraft for over a year without dropping training and peacetime missions at home. BARCAP or HVCAP duties do not go away, so in the end you will end up with less aircraft for offensive work.
Even in 20 years there will be missions for which F-35 will be complete overkill.

3. costs (which is in relation to 2)
Rising costs mean either pay more or reduce numbers.

4. technical risk
Seems manageable but could increase costs.

But 1+2 are my main concerns.

A better trained Air Force would require a different regime to be in power. A regime which values unconditional loyalty to the leader higher, than military qualifications will not be able to achieve that level of training. A regime which has used force against its pilots and their families, has punished them by death when missions failed and had a Baath party personal overseeing every move and every word spoken by the officers is unable to grow an effective and highly trained fighting force. That does not mean that Iraq did not have outstandigly skilled pilots, but the average was not as good as could have been, but much worse the Air Force was not operational functional. It can not work, when senior officers can not have a meeting without having to fear to come under investigation for plotting a coup.
And I have serious doubts that a saner regime would not have folded once they saw the force massed against them. Especially so shortly after the war with Iran and all the blood and money it did cost.

It is not F-35 vs. any other fighter, currently it is F-35 vs. budget cuts and developing problems.

Another funny thing to remember is, that the YF-23 was the less agile design, more relying on stealth and speed than the YF-22. Those short comings are today used against the F-35, and not without reason.

Generations is a marketing term. Signature reduction and supercruise aside there is not much left what can be improved without the pilot becoming the limiting factor. You can improve acceleration, you can improve turn rates, but the 4th generation was already close to what a pilot could endure over a longer time in an air combat situation. Most of the improvements are today coming from the avionics of the planes. Could probably take many 3rd generation airframes and turn them into decently effective fighter aircraft, without changing much of the airframe. (Just avioncs and engines)