He
Its about what resources you can bring to bear onto your opponent. Any defensive air force that has to deal with F-35’s, F-22’s, B-2’s, UCLASS, UCAV”s (AF), LRS-B, and legacy jets with stand off JASSM_ER’s and Future Hyperonics (all clubbed together with the most advanced data links and SATCOM’s etc), would certainly not get excited about the STRIKE_OPTIMIZED nature of the F-35. All that is going to be secondary…He is going to have a much bigger problem on his plate ” How to fight a stealth fleet (which would be in the thousands) that can pound out the $hit out of his defensive force in a matter of days”…

I think this is where certain comparisons fail. The assumption of some sort of war of equals between an F-22/-35 and T-50/J-20/J-21 doesn’t take into account the above situation.

I think that there simply a lack of understanding of how much capability the US can bring to a shooting war.

The only roles wwhere the F-35 fails miserably is the token air policing role or COIN roles where a cheaper 4th generation is more than adequate and much, much cheaper.

Your lack of maturity is showing again…….

Do I look like I care?

You do realise that disregarding statements by admirals and by taking everything positive about the F-35 as gospel truth also displays a remarkable immaturity. It reminds me of my 8 year old niece’s infatuation with One Direction.

Neither do you unless it’s “I love F-35. F-35 is so much better at doing anything than anything else in the world”. Apparently F-35 is the world’s best sweater, world’s best egg beater, and world’s best toilet brush.

Hugh Jackman is such a good actor because he’s an F-35 in disguise. It’s also why Catherine Zeta Jones is still so hot for an older babe – she’s really an F-35 as well.

Illuminati is actually code word for JSF Program Office and they run the world. It’s why Monaco, Nauru, Tuvalu and the Vatican will all be ordering the F-35 in the near future.

Better than you by the looks it – after all you seem to think F-35 Program Office is the supreme ruling body of USA.

NO, both the F-22 and F-35 were designed to be extremely capable dogfighters. Yet, to maintain a high level of overkill. They were given the added Advantage of Stealth, Advance Sensors, and in the case of the F-22 Super Cruise! You make it sound like the gave up Performance for Stealth. Which, is not the case at all………..

Never said they gave up their performance for stealth and especially not the F-22.

But the F-35s main job will be blasting enemy on ground. And F-22 might even do this (JDAM, small diameter bomb and anything else they might want to integrate into it).

Blasting the enemy on ground is far more effective than engaging them in A2A combat. Also destroying enemy AD, C3 etc is far more effective than engaging fighters on the ground.

Because all of these are better outcomes than engaging in A2A dogfighting:

1. Enemy fighter destroyed on the ground.
2. Enemy air detection system neutralised and incapable of tracking your fighters.
3. Enemy command and control neutralised so can’t launch fighters due to lack of orders.

All of these allow for complete air dominance.

And if the enemy manages to launch something, then yes the F-22 or F-35 can take it out, preferrably using BVR.

If the enemy launches all their fighters and has an operational AD C3I system, then you have to fight hard using A2A combat and you might even lose especially if for whatever reason you have to engage in WVR against peer opponents.

But if your stealth planes and their stealth bombs take out the enemy before they can do anything, then that makes life a lot easier and you can proceed with other elements of the mission (CAS, interdiction, neutralisation of strategic infrastructure ala power generation etc).

Basically the goal is to repeat what Israel did in 1967, and not what the Germans did in 1940.

After all, you’re trying to win a war and not play some sort of game of “who’s plane is best.”

Both the F-22 and F-35 are more than capable of defending themselves in the WVR. Yet, that is always the last option. The point is to destroy your opponent without him being aware of your presence! (i.e. surprise)

Exactly. The US system is based on offence with secondary defence. It also emphasises low friendly casualties.

Super maneovrability is an irrelevance when your jet was turned into scrap metal on the ground.

Not sure what Chinese and Russian strategic and tactical doctrines emphasise. Certainly it would seem more conventional type warfare than US VLO-orientated offensive strategies. After all both are still acquiring large numbers of 4th generation Flanker, J-10 and MiG-29 derivatives and the Chinese are even loading up on JH-7s which are roughly 1980s Tornado level.

It does decrease efficiency though – a strike package of Su-34s or J-16s (or current USAF F-15/-16/-18) needs far most resources allocated than an F-35/VLO package. Indeed this is one of the stated benefits of VLO.

Judging by their force composition, I suspect Chinese/Russian doctrines are based on homeland defence.

There’s also the knowledge on how to operate stealth aircraft to their full potential and as part of an overall warmachine, Again US has been doing this since 1989 when F-117s were used in Panama and has had plenty of experience since. Obviously this experience guided development of at least some F-35 features and capabilities.

I think this is why the F-35 has so much A2G focus and why the US/NATO is also developing stealth missiles ala JASSM.

Who needs T-50s super maneouvrability (apparently at the expense of stealth) when the other guy is nearly invisible and deploying stand off nearly invisible weapons?

Apart from the fact the Falklands was the reason the UK stopped buying Exocet as they were easily decoyed by the RN in 1982. One hit a merchant ship and the other hit the Sheffield which was operating with it’s radar off. Yes one hit HMS Glamorgan (I know it was one of the counties) but only cased minor damage….

3 hits out of 5 launches isn’t bad!