F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Claim

JSF Program Office Looks At Canada F-35 Swap

AWIN First
Bill Sweetman
Fri, 2014-11-07 13:55
A radical fast-track plan to jump-start Canada’s stalled effort to buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is revealed in a briefing document obtained by Aviation Week.

The Oct. 27 brief from JSF Program Executive Office director USAF Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan to Air Force secretary Deborah James calls for Canada to receive four F-35s next year, by diverting them from U.S. Air Force low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 7 orders. Canada would then buy four Lot 9 aircraft that would be delivered to the Air Force in 2017. According to the briefing, Canada would sign a letter of intent within days — "mid-November" — and Congress would be notified by the end of November.

Neither the JSF Program Office nor the Canadian Department of National Defense responded to repeated inquiries about the planned deal this week. The legal basis for such an exchange, absent an urgent operational need, is uncertain. The proposed LRIP 9 replacement aircraft are not on contract, and as far as is known, negotiations for them have not started.

According to the briefing, the Air Force has said it can spare four aircraft — budgeted at more than $160 million each — but with "no flex left" in the schedule for the aircraft to achieve initial operational capability. Aircraft availability is already a risk factor in meeting the objective initial operational capability date of August 2016.

Canada is a founding partner in the JSF program, with one of the largest near-term export orders. Its plan to buy 65 F-35As has been controversial since 2010, when prime minister Stephen Harper’s government attempted to bypass Canadian law that states that all major government acquisitions must be competed. The government asserted that the F-35 was the only aircraft that could meet Canadian requirements, but was forced to back down after Canada’s auditor-general reported in 2012 that the project’s costs had not been presented correctly and the air force’s "statement of requirements" had been compiled after the decision to make a sole-source procurement had been made.

The program to acquire new fighters has been supervised since 2012 by a special secretariat within Canada’s public works department. The most recent development was the announcement at the end of September of a plan to extend the life of Canada’s Boeing Hornet fleet to 2025. This was seen as confirming that Harper’s team had accepted the need to defer the JSF decision past the next general election, which is due no later than October 2015.

According to one Canadian industry observer close to the fighter program, the F-35 swap proposal is being pushed by Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office. "It would be a huge game changer," the source says, and another observer, former procurement official Alan Williams, calls it "explosive." The industry source is dubious that it can happen as scheduled: "The decision to go with the F-35 has not been made. This requires three key ministers to sign off and that hasn’t happened yet." A Harper attempt to lock Canada into the F-35 program before the election would risk an electoral backlash, sources say. "The fighter file is simply toxic right now," the industry observer says.

The swap proposal may be linked to program office and Lockheed Martin attempts in recent weeks to revive the concept of a multi-year, multi-nation block buy, first raised in 2007. Both would accelerate export sales, which are needed to support increased production rates and enable lower prices. According to the industry source, Canada’s fighter secretariat concluded in September that the JSF acquisition could not be completed within the nation’s CAN$9 billion ceiling unless the decision was delayed, pushing more of the 65 aircraft into full-rate production years. Lockheed Martin has promised much lower prices for aircraft delivered in 2019 and beyond.

Source URL:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Counter

No truth to reports Canada will buy F-35s: Feds 40

QMI AGENCY

FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2014 02:19 PM EST | UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2014 02:37 PM EST
f-35
U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II aircraft. REUTERS/Daniel Hughes/U.S. Air Force/Handout via Reuters/Files




1
Change text size for the storyPrint this story
Report an error
Related Stories
Pentagon will sign F-35 deal with Lockheed
Grits want Harper to resign over F-35s
Tories flying blind on F-35 purchase: AG
Lockheed Martin shows off pricey F-35
OTTAWA — Canada's Public Works Department denied reports it's decided to purchase F-35 fighter jets from the U.S.

Reports suggested a leaked U.S. Defence Department document revealed Canada agreed to buy up to four of the controversial planes from the U.S., to be delivered as early as 2016.

The Conservative government shelved its plan to buy the F-35 from Lockheed Martin in 2012 after a scathing report from the auditor general that highlighted cost overruns and other mismanagement problems in the procurment process.

The Conservatives reopened its search to replace its aging CF-18 fleet and have given few details over the past two years regarding plans.

On Friday afternoon, Marcel Poulin, spokesman for Public Works Minister Diane Finley, said "no decision has been made on the replacement of Canada's CF-18 fleet.

"The CF-18s are being life-extended to maintain a fighter capability through 2025."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

rebuttal

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I beg to differ. The F-35 is not going to be a peer to the T-50 (or J-20, if the bays are as big as T-50's) when it comes to weapons loads, nor in terms of kinematics. Now, you can argue that the F-35 is a much better strike fighter due to its ability to get close to a target area. But is that enough?

Jeff was clear on the distinction in roles between a F-22A and a F-35 (air dominance vs. strike) and as such performance and capabilities are designed to optimise those functions. Comparing their respective capabilities is like matching apples and oranges. The T-50 is designed for air dominance which the F-35 is not. It is the role of the F-22A to deal with the T-50 when it is introduced. Whether there are sufficient F-22A's - we will have to see. The capability gap issue will be for those countries that has the F-35 only (like Australia) and its next door neighbours buy the T-50. That will be a game changer.

If you are familiar with Hostage's comments, he says the F-35 is nowhere close to the F-22 when it comes to ground strike. And he also says the F-35 is more stealthy, whatever the reasons may be, probably has to do with other radar bands. So the only reason why 8 F-35s are needed to match 2 F-22s would be kinematics, since obviously superior avionics don't help as far as Hostage is concerned. To add to that neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are planned to carry cruise missiles as of today (with the exception of JSM, but USAF won't be using it, so we won't get to it). In fact, the F-22 carries lesser A2G munitions compared to the F-35. OTOH, the T-50 has as good or better kinematics compared to the F-22, while also carrying a larger assortment of weapons, including cruise missiles.

Not everyone is familiar with Hostage's comments - should we be? It would be useful if you want to quote Hostage to outline the substance of the case being put forth and so we can comment on it if there is anything that can be added. If you wish to talk of F-22A vs. F-35 in terms of strike capabilities, it has to be put into context of mission set. In deep penetration strike of a cluttered IADS, the go to guy is the F-22A because of its all aspect stealth. The F-35 is not likely to be survivable because it is not all aspect and its weak underside RCS profile is detectable up to 110 nm by advanced SAM's. In contrast, the RCS of a F-22A is only detectable at approximately 15 nm and then it uses its supercruise to get out of harm's way.

The F-35 wing design uses vortex lift to further enhance low speed and loiter efficiency to hunt battlefield targets. The F-35 trades away supersonic performance to maximise subsonic cruise/loiter efficiency and is also reflected in its engine optimisation for low altitude performance. However if you wish to measure ‘bombing productivity’, the F-22A is able to perform more sortie runs as it can cruise supersonically between locations. So it is horses for courses.

As for the T-50 being an F-22 equivalent, you can argue that even if the F-22's kinematics are matched or exceeded by the T-50, stealth and avionics will play in the F-22's favor. But, this is again debatable because the T-50 isn't following the American formula of 90% shaping and 10% materials, it is the exact opposite. Shaping plays a smaller part in the T-50's stealth design and materials plays a more significant part.

More than 85% of the T-50's stealth comes from degrading the incident EM waves rather than simply deflecting them like in the case of the F-22. This way, the reflections from the T-50 are much lower from any direction while the F-22 would have a much greater emission of reflected signals in specific directions making it vulnerable to multistatic radars. While shaping contributes to 90% of the F-22's stealth (possibly), shaping contributes to only 15% of the T-50's stealth. The benefit of this technique is RCS can be reduced with the development of better and better materials, while the F-22 is more limited in that sense. So while they say that the F-22 or F-35s RCS will never change, the same may not be true for the T-50.

The end game of stealth is get to a VLO profile which I believe the T-50 based on the initial prototype design has achieved this capability based on shaping. Whether it is material based or shaping is not as important as the end result and its consequent RCS profile. I am not familiar with Russia's advances in material stealth and so it is something to note as the research materials become available. The downside I suspect is the degration over time and hence it is maintenance heavy as I believe was with the F-117 program.

Now, if an aircraft that was designed particularly for strike is less capable than its air dominance cousin, how on earth will it match a rival that is designed to be as good or better than the air dominance cousin? And the only real way to prove this wrong would be to claim that Hostage was lying all along.

I think you are too fixated on what Hostages said. What exactly did he say?

 

[Jura The idiot]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

.... In the real world, erroneous mathematical theories, just give the bad guys false hope, but the next 20 will not be under any such delusion!

...

to war-gamers here: perhaps you should always say where your imaginary encounter takes place (due to boring but important issues of refueling, rearming, arriving of backup units etc.)

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

1) I seriously doubt that there will be any surprise within a year for the F-22. Even if the PAK-FA or the J-20 were introduced in some typoe of IOC in that time frame (which I do not believe they will be), hey will still not be a match for the F-22. For the J-20, until they goet a new engine with the desired capabilities, and lessen the IR signature back there...that will probably remain the same.

I think the issue is not so much with the F-22 but with the F-35 as only the US has the Raptor. The rest of the allies has to make do with the F-35 and it does have serious competition now with the SU-35S. The only advantage with the F-35 is its stealth as you can't kill what you can't see. Unfortunately with the availability of airborne L band AESA and the powerful IRBIS radar, the exchange loss ratio potentially is just one and given the F-35 cost at least twice as much as a SU-35, the economics start to weigh in in any attrition. As the F-35 is not all aspect stealth, I am sure there are already counter air tactics to maximise this inherent weakness in the F-35 by vectoring in the counter air assets and using triangulation to expose the F-35 as it turns to meet its threat (I think they called it the Siberian technique). The SU-35 carries at least 3 times the AA loadout than the F-35 and using thrust vectoring and supercruise it has a better chance of surviving the first shot from a F-35. Once the F-35 has expended its load. it can't outfly its adversary. I think this type of scenario, is where the term was coined that the F-35 can't turn, can't climb and can't run. With radar technology development it can't even hide.

2) As to the F-35 besting a Raptor. It will be possible. The sensor fusion of the F-35 is actually better than the F-22 and it is difficult to transfer those capabilities over because of the differences in architecture. So, in a match up, with both armed with the latest missiles, the F-35 could detect and get the first shot off. I am not saying that will be an absolute ...because there are plenty of features the F-22 has to limit that possibility. I would expect, depdning on the ROEs, that the F-22 would beat an F-35...particularly if it is no holds barred.

But that kind of air superiority fight is not what the F-35 was designed for when it comes to air to air. It is not meant to tangle in a turn and burn fur ball with others...though it will not be terrible at that if it has too, probably better than most think (just watch some of the high off angle testing that has gone on). Anyhow, it was not designed to do so...it was designed to strike, and to be able to defend itself while so doing if it has to...and to win that contest before a fur ball develops.

I think you are being too kind to the F-35 when pit against a F-22A.

Anyhow...they are both 5th generation combat aircraft.

I think many will disagree with you that the F-35 is a true fifth generation plane as it lacks primarily thrust vectoring and supercruise.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

...

I think many will disagree with you that the F-35 is a true fifth generation plane as it lacks primarily thrust vectoring and supercruise.

what is it, then, four plus plus plus? LOL

as for definitions, I did a quick google-search, found:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[A Bar Brother]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Jeff was clear on the distinction in roles between a F-22A and a F-35 (air dominance vs. strike) and as such performance and capabilities are designed to optimise those functions. Comparing their respective capabilities is like matching apples and oranges. The T-50 is designed for air dominance which the F-35 is not. It is the role of the F-22A to deal with the T-50 when it is introduced. Whether there are sufficient F-22A's - we will have to see. The capability gap issue will be for those countries that has the F-35 only (like Australia) and its next door neighbours buy the T-50. That will be a game changer.

This was my point too, with the exception that the F-22 is a better strike fighter compared to the F-35.

Not everyone is familiar with Hostage's comments - should we be?

We should be since he is the guy who is going to run most of the F-35s for the USAF. I thought everybody already knew.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you wish to talk of F-22A vs. F-35 in terms of strike capabilities, it has to be put into context of mission set. In deep penetration strike of a cluttered IADS, the go to guy is the F-22A because of its all aspect stealth. The F-35 is not likely to be survivable because it is not all aspect and its weak underside RCS profile is detectable up to 110 nm by advanced SAM's. In contrast, the RCS of a F-22A is only detectable at approximately 15 nm and then it uses its supercruise to get out of harm's way.

Sorry, but the F-35 is also all aspect stealth. And I don't think we should dismiss RCS reduction from any particular side. And if you want to get out of harm's way what matters more is supercruise.

The end game of stealth is get to a VLO profile which I believe the T-50 based on the initial prototype design has achieved this capability based on shaping. Whether it is material based or shaping is not as important as the end result and its consequent RCS profile. I am not familiar with Russia's advances in material stealth and so it is something to note as the research materials become available. The downside I suspect is the degration over time and hence it is maintenance heavy as I believe was with the F-117 program.

The best we know is the Mig-21 was reduced from its original figure of 3m2 to 0.25m2 on a treated airframe, and this was in the early 2000s.

I think you are too fixated on what Hostages said. What exactly did he say?

You will find his quotes very interesting.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I ROFL: people who follow this thread know Lieutenant General Bogdan is the head of the F-35 program, and Sergey Bogdan (sorry I don't know his rank) is the test-pilot of the Su-35 who flew to Zhuhai 2014 (if I understood this article in Spanish:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

This was my point too, with the exception that the F-22 is a better strike fighter compared to the F-35.



We should be since he is the guy who is going to run most of the F-35s for the USAF. I thought everybody already knew.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sorry, but the F-35 is also all aspect stealth. And I don't think we should dismiss RCS reduction from any particular side. And if you want to get out of harm's way what matters more is supercruise.



The best we know is the Mig-21 was reduced from its original figure of 3m2 to 0.25m2 on a treated airframe, and this was in the early 2000s.



You will find his quotes very interesting.

I had a look at the reference link on Hostages. My read is that Hostages is performing what a politician does best; be sufficiently ambiguous but enough to get the PR side out and try to downplay if there is any misstep. You will have to read between the lines to actually understand the meaning behind the words. So my comments are :

(i) His comments "If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22". That is simply the truth but obviously for countries without the F-22 but are prospective F-35 customers, that doesn't send a comforting message. Unfortunately that statement is pretty accurate even if he might have to do some damage control.

(ii) He described a mission set requiring F-35 that would be prohibitive for other air assets. I noted that intentionally he left out whether it is a IADS or non IADS environment. He is inferring some kind of threat that the F-35 can handle. This is what he said "“I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

Unfortunately his statements are incoherent because of their conflicting nature as he is saying the mission set requires 8 F-35 as opposed to 2 F-22's but yet the F-35 is more effective. No wonder Sweetman at the onset of the article said this : "The first observation to be made is that the Air Force might be able to use an Eng Lit 101 course." It is also interesting to note that he said " it can’t turn and run away (the F-35)". This maybe because as the F-35 is not all aspect stealth, the side and rear has a higher dBm reading than the front and would be more vulnerable if it turns. It may also mean that a straight line sweep requires more asset deployment than a 360 degree sweep. Who knows what is going on in between his brain and lips.

(iii)I think this one beats it all when he said "The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” Now Sweetman comments on this said it all "Now, we all know that a lot of things can go happen between the interviewee’s brain and the interviewer’s keyboard, but the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum." In other words this Hostage is full of "s**t"

 

[A Bar Brother]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

(ii) He described a mission set requiring F-35 that would be prohibitive for other air assets. I noted that intentionally he left out whether it is a IADS or non IADS environment.

The entire time he was talking about the first week of war. So he was talking about DEAD. The article mentions DEAD as well, so there shouldn't be any doubt as to what he was talking about.

Hostage's quote,

“In the first moments of a conflict

The article I posted links to two more articles, I would recommend reading those too, if you missed it.

Unfortunately his statements are incoherent because of their conflicting nature as he is saying the mission set requires 8 F-35 as opposed to 2 F-22's but yet the F-35 is more effective.

He says 8 F-35s are needed to match or exceed 2 F-22s. Now what if the bad guys bring in 8 F-22s? Will I have to bring in 32 F-35s then?

No wonder Sweetman at the onset of the article said this : "The first observation to be made is that the Air Force might be able to use an Eng Lit 101 course."

He is referring to Hostage's use of the words "old think," which was a rather crude joke. And Hostage was talking about the F-117 being shot down, so nothing to do with the discussion we are having here.

It is also interesting to note that he said " it can’t turn and run away (the F-35)". This maybe because as the F-35 is not all aspect stealth,

He is obviously talking about supercruise. The ability to get out as fast as possible. Even the Su-35 will easily catch up with the F-35, stealth or no stealth. That pretty blue flame is going to light up an IRST like a Christmas tree. So the F-35's ability to run is compromised and is not possible without escort protecting it. The weapons bays limit the number of missiles too, so the option of fighting back is lower still.

And the F-35 is all aspect RF stealth, there shouldn't be any doubts about it. The only downside is the round nozzles, but that comes into play only at co-altitude and when you are at his six, not such a frequent occurrence.

(iii)I think this one beats it all when he said "The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” Now Sweetman comments on this said it all "Now, we all know that a lot of things can go happen between the interviewee’s brain and the interviewer’s keyboard, but the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum." In other words this Hostage is full of "s**t"

Many people don't think so. But of course, we have a top ranking USAF commander talk smack about the F-35 in order to induct more F-35s. Interesting. Pray tell me how the commander plans to get all the F-35s he needs by criticizing the F-35?

Or the situation has changed so much that the F-22's 90% shaping 10% materials stealth is no longer enough. Materials have progressed quite a bit since the F-22.

Another reason why Hostage is speaking the truth.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Scranton, PA: What are the differences between the F-22 and the F-35 other than price?

Maj. Corcoran: The F/A-22 and F-35 are designed to complement one another. Neither airplane can replace the other. The F/A-22 is the only platform that can "knock down the door" to anti-access threat environments. It's speed, stealth and integrated avionics are unmatched. It is also an ISR platform (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance). It can go places no other airplane can, gather valuable information and feed that information back to the commanders and decision makers. Once the F/A-22 knocks down the door the F-35 will bring a large payload of air-to-ground ordnance to bear on the enemy.

Now, you can't have two people talk about the same thing and believe they are both lying, can you? If you haven't noticed, Major Corcoran gave his opinion in 2005 while Hostage made the same in 2014. And nothing's changed in that time. The F-22 is still the king of the hill when it comes to SEAD/DEAD.

Technically, you don't need heavy bombs for SEAD/DEAD, the F-22 can do that even with SDBs. So SEAD/DEAD is platform-centric as far as the USAF is concerned. But if the F-35s are going to do SEAD/DEAD, then the USAF is going to need more aircraft to compensate for the lack of unique capabilities offered only by the F-22.

It only provides more credence to Hostage's claim that more F-35s are needed to do the work of a F-22. If you look at the IAF, they are doing the same as well. They want 10-15 squadrons of FGFAs to work the ground while using a whole host of cheaper 4th and 5th gen aircraft for the grunt work, Rafale, AMCA, you name it. And the FGFA is more suited to ground attack than the F-22 is. Bigger weapons bays, more weapons, LERX, variable cycle engines etc.

 

[Brumby]

Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

The entire time he was talking about the first week of war. So he was talking about DEAD. The article mentions DEAD as well, so there shouldn't be any doubt as to what he was talking about.

Hostage's quote,

The article I posted links to two more articles, I would recommend reading those too, if you missed it.



He says 8 F-35s are needed to match or exceed 2 F-22s. Now what if the bad guys bring in 8 F-22s? Will I have to bring in 32 F-35s then?



He is referring to Hostage's use of the words "old think," which was a rather crude joke. And Hostage was talking about the F-117 being shot down, so nothing to do with the discussion we are having here.



He is obviously talking about supercruise. The ability to get out as fast as possible. Even the Su-35 will easily catch up with the F-35, stealth or no stealth. That pretty blue flame is going to light up an IRST like a Christmas tree. So the F-35's ability to run is compromised and is not possible without escort protecting it. The weapons bays limit the number of missiles too, so the option of fighting back is lower still.

And the F-35 is all aspect RF stealth, there shouldn't be any doubts about it. The only downside is the round nozzles, but that comes into play only at co-altitude and when you are at his six, not such a frequent occurrence.



Many people don't think so. But of course, we have a top ranking USAF commander talk smack about the F-35 in order to induct more F-35s. Interesting. Pray tell me how the commander plans to get all the F-35s he needs by criticizing the F-35?

Or the situation has changed so much that the F-22's 90% shaping 10% materials stealth is no longer enough. Materials have progressed quite a bit since the F-22.

Another reason why Hostage is speaking the truth.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now, you can't have two people talk about the same thing and believe they are both lying, can you? If you haven't noticed, Major Corcoran gave his opinion in 2005 while Hostage made the same in 2014. And nothing's changed in that time. The F-22 is still the king of the hill when it comes to SEAD/DEAD.

Technically, you don't need heavy bombs for SEAD/DEAD, the F-22 can do that even with SDBs. So SEAD/DEAD is platform-centric as far as the USAF is concerned. But if the F-35s are going to do SEAD/DEAD, then the USAF is going to need more aircraft to compensate for the lack of unique capabilities offered only by the F-22.

It only provides more credence to Hostage's claim that more F-35s are needed to do the work of a F-22. If you look at the IAF, they are doing the same as well. They want 10-15 squadrons of FGFAs to work the ground while using a whole host of cheaper 4th and 5th gen aircraft for the grunt work, Rafale, AMCA, you name it. And the FGFA is more suited to ground attack than the F-22 is. Bigger weapons bays, more weapons, LERX, variable cycle engines etc.

Just mentioning the term DEAD in my view can mean different things to different people because it depends on the SAM systems behind it. Dealing with a S-300 or S-400 is different from that of other less serious area denial. When Corcoran talks about the fact that only the F-22 that can kick down the door it is true if it is concerning an IADS built around S-300 or S-400. F-35 is not expected to survive against such area denial. When Hostages talked about DEAD, he could be referring to lesser systems which the F-35 can handle. Both of them need not necessarily be making conflicting statements. Obviously a certain number of air assets are required to do the job because there is an individual cap on weapon load out but central to it is that the platform must be able to perform in a denial environment and frankly in certain ones only the F-22 can handle the task. This is purely a function of its all aspect stealth and its RCS profile which enables it to knock out the threat before they are detected.