Since it’s only the American Subs that are involved, I would say no.
PAUC and APUC also cover a lot more than just the plane. The cost, especially on an annual basis, for the F-35 & most other fighters has been URF.

Lockheed Martin dispels F-35 corrosion fears
When speaking with Defence Connect, director of F-35 international business development Steve Over was quick to highlight Lockheed’s rapid response to the issues identified in late 2017.
“We have developed a remediation plan in close collaboration with our customers. It was decided that the issues presented weren’t urgent, so they would be rectified as the aircraft cycled back through maintenance depots,” he said.
…
Meanwhile, recent publicity surrounding apparent depressurisation and oxygen supply issues, allegedly similar to those experienced in the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, were also identified when a number of pilots stationed at Luke Air Force Base presented with physiological symptoms similar to hypoxia, including oxygen deprivation, ear pain and sinus issues.
In response to the claims of depressurisation concerns around the F-35 cockpit, Over was clear when he said that it was not a depressurisation issue and that slow progress had been made regarding the root cause analysis, with a number opportunities to improve the robustness of the design identified.
Meanwhile, the complex physiological issues experienced by the small number of pilots could not be directly attributed to hypoxia (oxygen deprivation) and it would be prudent to await the final findings of the thorough investigation for a likely cause.
More at the jump
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/2569-5th-generation-fighter-to-come-roaring-into-service-despite-concerns
It seems that we agree that the F-35 would be outright much more expensive than its counterparts to achieve the same level of operational autonomy then.
That’s the price you pay, pun intended, in order to lower the lifetime O&S costs.
Once again, I have not said that the SU-57 in not to some degree stealthy, just that due to lack of experience (shown in the oblivious use of IRST balls, vent slits, corner reflectors, etc) that it is not to the level of the F-22/35. Give them a decade or two of experience combined with an increase in tech availability and I have no doubt that Sukhoi should be able to get into the VLO range of RCS.
This is where LM’s experience comes into play. With “continuous curvature” calculations and proper RAM/RAS, this kind of surface feature does not have to adversely affect a fighter’s VLO profile. What LM did is exponentially better than what Sukhoi did with the Su-57.

btw, I found a portrait for your basement bedroom wall. :stupid:

That’s a pretty bold statement
Looking at the Su-57 makes it self-evident and valid.
I’m not commenting on high level maintenance conducted in foreign territory.
Any country is welcome to setup their own MRO&U and depot facilities. They can even shut off their national ALIS feed but will have to be willing to then stock their own parts. Without JPO ALIS feedback the PHM will be less accurate and they will have to start doing a lot more preventative and manual maintenance.
All of these things cost more money, but they are free to do it.
Every fighter is a compromise in one way or another. What you have to determine is will the compromise affect the fighter in any significant way.
My point is that LM’s experience with VLO gives them more knowledge on what they can do (and not do) with regards to how a feature will affect the RCS of the aircraft, especially in an operational & wartime environment. I am not saying that Sukhoi will not “eventually” gain the same level of knowledge, just that they do not have it now.
You would have to be above looking down on the F-35 for that to ever be an issue.
Next.
F-16V would be a good choice.
It’s called a “Luneburg Lens” (2nd pic)… it’s purpose is to make the RCS “bigger”. They take them off for combat ops.
As far as the curved nose goes, it’s perfectly fine.
What specific ALIS concern?
I can operate for long periods “off the net” and can filter outgoing data to ensure that any sensitive data is not “passed up the chain”.
Plenty of nations have bought F-16s & F-18s (including the Swiss) without getting access to the “codes” and it did not seem to bother them.
Is this just a prototype ? Maybe it will be fixed on the production models.
Those are the MADL and EODAS apertures. They are supposed to (and HAVE to) be there in order to provide 360 coverage.
Here are 4 hi-res photos of that area. As you can see, there are no corner reflectors, sharp edges perpendicular to the plane of travel, etc as it’s all gentle curves.
https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jan/03/2000762416/-1/-1/0/131212-F-TJ158-508.JPG
https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5437ec4f69beddfb451a07b2/image.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/A_U.S._Air_Force_pilot_navigates_an_F-35A_Lightning_II_aircraft_assigned_to_the_58th_Fighter_Squadron,_33rd_Fighter_Wing_into_position_to_refuel_with_a_KC-135_Stratotanker_assigned_to_the_336th_Air_Refueling_130516-F-XL333-404.jpg
https://hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/150115-f-jb386-037.jpg