Then you cannot say that the F-35 requires 8,000 ft to take off. The AB is an integral part of the engine, whether that engine is installed in an F-16 or F-15 or F-35, so integral that even if the engine is not AB capable, it will not be installed in the jet even though the jet can take off and fly without AB. By your argument, the non-AB capable C-17 has 'special needs' because NATO requires 8,000 ft runways to support it. But even if the F-35 requires 8,000 ft of runway to takeoff, so what ? What make Israel's needs so unique that those needs override other NATO allies, of whom ALL of them already have 8,000 ft runways ?
Like I already said, distance from the enemy. In the case of NATO, the enemy was really really far. The Soviets need to conduct complex strike missions in order to get to NATO air bases.
In the case of Israel, the Jordanians can use artillery to destroy air bases and runways. They are that close to Israel. A single Russian SAM like the S-400 in Syria can cover the entire Israeli airspace. So you cannot apply NATO logic to the Israelis. Their threat environment is completely different.
Israel is heavily dependent on American aid for their military. The problem here is Israel is being forced to purchase something they have less utility for compared to a F-15SE, but the Americans are not giving them a choice due to economic and political greed. This affects Israeli national security. And even after that, the Americans have created multiple hurdles in order to use the F-35, like ALIS and the lack of a maintenance facility.
I understand that as a non-American, you have an emotional investment in trying to put as much a negative light on US as possible, even if that mean entering into something you have no experience whatsoever.
Hardly. On this forum, I have argued with an Indian member about the benefits of dealing with the US MIC, even if he didn't like it, he was part of the Indian MIC. At the same time, I argued against you when you said India has more to lose against China compared to the US.
On IDF, I support the F-35 against the French F-35 critics. But at the same time I don't glorify it about being something it is not. The F-35 may be the best thing since sliced bread to one country, but the same doesn't apply to another.
You are just like the V-22 Osprey's critics. Now that the Osprey have seen combat missions, those critics have disappeared. Not a one stayed around and offered an apology for being so wrong about the concept of a tilt rotor in general and the Osprey in particular.
Well, then we should be glad I wasn't one of them. I've always liked the Osprey.
When -- not if -- the F-35 turns out to be superior to anything your India, Russia, or the Euros have, just like the Osprey's critics, YOU will disappear as well.
If the F-35 turns out to be superior, then that's a plus point, but that's most unlikely. I've followed the program way too much to know it has very limited capabilities.
Performance - All competitors beat it.
Range - All competitors beat it.
Payload - Most of them match it. Some beat it outright.
Maintenance - Most of the competitors beat it.
Cost - With the exception of FGFA and AMCA, all the competitors are cheaper.
Avionics - The Rafale already matches it. By the time the F-35 achieves FOC, the Rafale won't even have a radar in the nose, it will have moved into other parts of the fuselage and give it complete 360 degree capability in more than just the X band. Expected in 2021 as part of the F3R Roadmap. The French plan on using the Rafale post 2030 also. So it has a long term development plan, including a modernized Rafale.
Stealth - The F-35's advantage comes from shaping, but the Israelis themselves have questioned it. They were the first foreign operators, so that matters a lot.
I cannot yet speak about the AMCA because information is limited and the J-20 is an enigma, but what they have told about the FGFA is pretty big. You will find a person here who can easily defend the Rafale as a direct competitor to the F-35, even in stealth. A Dassault VP said the Rafale is as stealthy as the F-22. And you will find an Air Marshal in the IAF who said the FGFA is a generation ahead compared to the Rafale.
According to one IAF official who earlier criticized the FGFA program said that they still need to study the FGFA program because the Russian claims were 'fantastic'. He was mocking them when he said that. A MoD led study was conducted, the technologies they planned on introducing and the way they planned to implement it were studied and the program was finally approved. The process took 3 years.
All the claims are indeed fantastic. The engine is very light, about the same weight as the SH's engine, but delivers twice the power. It is a variable cycle engine with the capability to adapt to a particular function. Like an entire engine's power can be converted to electrical power and directed towards firing a high-powered laser. I'm sure you have heard of their new photonics based radar system. They plan on completely overhauling AESA radar technology, target resolution will see up to 30 times improvement. A
dozen brand new weapons are planned for induction, including hypersonic weapons in the 2015-25 period. Many of them are meant to fit into the internal bays. It is meant to function in a completely isolated environment without any support or communication. Well, naturally, if the jet is expected to cost a whopping $225M, that too for a Russian jet. To compare, the Su-35 costs $15M flyaway.
Special needs as a legitimate criticism against the F-35...That is just F-ing hilarious.
The Russians designed some of their fighters to have special intakes to protect the engines from FOD. Without those functional intake protectors, the jets would not be allowed to fly. So why is that not qualified as a 'special needs' ? Because India flies them.
It is a special need, but it has a very productive use. It means the aircraft can take off from any location, paved or unpaved. The F-35's special need for the extended runway is a drawback, a negative quality.
The F-35B needs special treatment on carrier decks. That's also a drawback.
The F-35B is capable of STOVL operation. It needs a big fan and large moving parts for the engine. So it has special needs by being more maintenance intensive, but this is not a drawback because it can be put to productive use.
There were a lot of people who criticized the F-117 as being maintenance intensive, but I see that as a special need that has an extremely productive use.
Radar low observable bodies requires maintenance to wear 'booties' so that the maintainers will not scratch the surface, thereby compromising RCS. I guess Indian 'stealth' fighters will not have this special needs due to 'Indian physics'.
No. This is a special need that is undesirable but cannot be avoided. No different from the F-117. As long as it's productive, you gotta suck it up and do it. Indian physics is the same as American physics, you don't have to worry about that.
The F-35's runway requirement is insane. It has no business being that needy. In fact, I don't know how you even justify it after having flown an aircraft that needs less than 3600 feet to take off. It's fine to be biased about your air force, but please draw the line somewhere. Somebody's messed up the F-35 program, and your country and your allies will end up suffering for it. The J-20 could be something the F-35 is completely unsuited for as an adversary.
