Why do we need to do that? We've got the PAK FA T-50 haven't we?
And then the F-35 is a disaster. Engineers already found problems with the engine, avionics and HMD during the initial testing phase, so it can be logically assumed that by the time the rest of the testing is finished, a magnitude of problems will arise that will only shoot the cost up to astronomical levels.
In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million if its share of RDT&E spending is included
With a payload of only two 2,000 pound munitions in its bomb bays, the F-35 is hardly a first-class bomber either. With more bombs carried under its wings, it becomes ‘non-stealthy,’ and its enhanced payload is nothing to write home about. As a ‘close air support’ attack aircraft to replace the A-10 in active and reserve units and to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is a nonstarter. It is too fast to independently find and identify tactical targets; too fragile to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces in ground combat for the sustained periods they need.
Needless to say, the F-35 advocates will protest, what of its two most prized features: ‘stealth’ and advanced avionics? What the Pentagon will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft. Ask the pilots of the two ‘stealthy’ F-117s that the Serbs successfully attacked with radar defenses in the 1999 Kosovo air war! So much for stealth.
With many countries truncating their demands and some even cancelling them, the US of A is desperate to find a buyer to unload the F-35. India shouldn't fall into the trap.
Bottom line: The F-35 is a bad idea that shows every sign of turning into a disaster as big as the F-111 fiasco of the 1960s.