Other than marketing spin, what is a “fifth generation” fighter?
I would say it is valid to say that the F-35 isn’t a “fifth generation” fighter. However the generation labels of jet fighter aircraft development post WWII was and is a marketing ploy. It is inexact and the sellers of aircraft like that kind of thing so as to keep the guible that hand over the money; confused.
Published today is an open letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates from APA stating that there is a lot more to advanced fighter design than a lable.
Given all of the capabilities available in the market place; is the F-35 a “fifth generation” fighter?
.
RSF, 
Bjørnar Bolsøy, 
Firefox and 9 others are discussing. 
James 8:36 pm on November 8, 2009 Permalink |
Ahhh…the one-note song of the APA! They give the highest marks to a fighter no one has actually seen yet, indicating that LockMart can learn some lessons from Sukhoi about “spin and sophistry.” In the end, APA’s views are entirely conventional: bigger is better and more is more.
If they were really interested in lateral thinking they would ask if “stealth” is really going to live up to its hype in peer competition or if supercruise at high altitude is going to make you anything more than a target for heat-seeking missiles. They might wonder if manned fighters are on their way out; if it’s really wise to invest too much in a new aircraft at a time when technology is changing so fast; if modified and improved “fourth generation” fighters might be a more sensible middle course.
I agree that the F-35 is underpowered, maneuvers poorly, and relies too heavily on its electronics and the dubious protection of low radar return. But F-22s can never be built in the numbers necessary to project power on the scale the USAF is expected to. Superplane or not, it can only be in one place at a time. Aircraft, like it or not, cannot have the best of everything. Choices need to be made. The reason why Western military programs are circling the drain right after each other is because program managers and generals simply refuse to make tough decisions about which attributes they want to emphasize in their new weapons. Ships and planes get bigger and more expensive, armored vehicles get heavier and more expensive, numbers decline, and soon you have a handful of sluggish, overarmed troops stuck in the middle of nowhere being whittled away by nimbler adversaries that carry less firepower than an American deer hunter.
Gates did not invent the F-35; he inherited it. He probably understands its limitations and probably wishes he could go back to the beginning. But he’s stuck with it and he also knows that, at some point, you gotta pee or get off the pot. I personally would prefer to see the project canceled in favor of new-build F-15s but I also know you would never get that through Congress. So here we are, trapped: the F-22 was overdesigned into its grave, the USAF has convinced Congress that fourth-generation fighters are deathtraps, and the F-35 is too far along to change. Anybody got any bright ideas? Because nothing on Earth can stop the inertia of a big-ticket weapons program. We’re stuck with the F-35, like it or not.
Mark Simpson 11:19 pm on November 8, 2009 Permalink |
That chart hurts my face…
The point of the F-35 is not to be the end-all of fighters, it’s like looking at the Super Hornet vs the Tomcat. Sure, the F-14 is faster, has a longer range, and has those super cool swing-wings, but the Navy decided to go with the F-18E/F even after all the howls of protest. Why? Because with the Super Hornet, you effectively get more airplanes (because the MCR rate is so much higher), which negates all the performance you lost within the individual aircraft. Would you rather have more thrust or another guy covering your back?
I mean, every fighter has the exact same turn rate when it’s in a hanger getting it’s insides switched out.
You really have to look at logistics for the F-35 idea to make sense, which it does. More volume gives you economies of scale, and a linked global network gives you huge amounts of data so you can effectively predict many problems and modify your supply chain accordingly. Now, whether the idea will work is something we won’t know for years and years.
Bjørnar Bolsøy 11:43 pm on November 8, 2009 Permalink |
Not sure what’s worse; bad marketing or bad science.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Bjørnar Bolsøy 12:21 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Not sure what’s worse; bad marketing or bad science. Perhaps somewhat unlikely that the Russians and Chinese will soon catch up anytime soon in a few of the key technologies. Anyway, as far as I can judge the F-35 easily qualifies for another 7-8 points, or so: sub/transonic performance regime, integrated avionics, situational awareness, supersonic weapons release (and supersonic ingress with a 5700 lb loadout), VLO, more internal AAMs comming up, engine growth, availability/affordability/sustainability..
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Linda V 12:40 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
“Now, whether the idea will work is something we won’t know for years and years.”
. . . and after the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars!
On the oft chance that the economies of scale that are being claimed are hiding the reality of dis-economies of scale and the other reality that analyses of the data and facts, then testing the evidence are showing, namely, that the JSF Program is just so flawed, what are you going to do, then?
Linda V 1:01 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Bjørnar :
Like many who have trouble admitting they have been misled, you appear to have not read, let alone studied, what is in this table.
Of the “another 7-8 points” you raise, most are covered with their scores in the table.
Supersonic weapons release from the JSF weapon bays will, at best, be highly problematic and, if possible at all, will be limited to bomber like release points since. Remember, with the JSF, maneuvering is irrelevant.
Supersonic ingress will be at a low Mach (~ 1.2M) with prodigious fuel flows, particularly mid envelope (say, at an altitude of 4.5 km) requiring every drop of the high internal fuel load just to engage with legacy fighters that can re-configure themselves from being Cadillacs to Ferraris by pickling off their external fuel tanks.
You can hope your beliefs are well founded but the what, why, when and how in the data and the facts tell a quite different story – as this table demonstrates.
However, it should not be about who is right but, rather, what is right and what is best for those who fly to defend.
Linda V 1:46 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Okay – to the Headless Horseman trio (Jason Simonds, Gary Fairlie and Aussie Digger), the question should be put:
What score should the JSF get for this ‘measure of capability’ metric?
Does the JSF have side looking ESA apertures or not?
While at it, why don’t you tell us all how you would score the JSF against the metrics listed as well as against those aircraft that are in the Fifth Generation Fighter stakes?
RSF 3:53 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Just a few comments on the latest from APA:
While many would disagree with the scores given to some of the Russian/Chinese fighters, I can’t fault the score given the F-35 in this comparison. The metrics used are all appropriate 21st century technologies which should be represented in true 5th generation air supremacy fighters, and that’s the problem.
The JSF was designed as a “strike” fighter first, with air to air fighting capability being a secondary objective, so the metrics used for this comparison would seem to put the F-35 at an unfair disadvantage. Unfortunately Mr. Gates and company continue to parade the F-35 around as an alternative to the F-22 for air to air combat, and again we have a comparison casting doubts on the JSF’s ability to pull this off (which is appropriate).
In response to the comments about the Chinese fighters, it is known that China has had two stealth fighter development programs running, one for a single engine fighter, and another for a two engined Raptor class fighter. Several unverified reports have surfaced over the last two years indicating the several prototypes have been seen flying, but at this point it is hard say how how far these programs have progressed.
SpudmanWP 5:53 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Lets take it one point at a time:
1. Supercruising – The F-35 has the ability when you look at the clean airframe and huge amount of thrust. Flight testing will likely show mach ~1.2 SC ability. As far as the PAKFA @ mach 2 SC, that is a joke. Neither the J-12/J-xx or PAKFA have flown or been seen publicly so to guess at their ability but discount the F-35 is disingenuous. What is the publically stated SU-35 SC, and don’t forget the link?
2. High Agility Supersonic/Subsonic – By what measure are you discounting the F-35? All test pilots have praised it’s subsonic maneuverability.
3. High Specific Excess Power – Ps – What the hell is that?
4. TVC – This is a device that was invented to overcome the limitations of sensor & weapons to do HOBS shots. The F-35’s weapons and EODAS allow it to take 360 shots without having to nose point. The second function of TVC is to reduce drag by enabling smaller control surfaces. Since the F-35 is not designed to operate much in the > mach 1.5 area, supersonic drag is not an issue.
5. Highly Integrated Avionics – The US has the highest experience in integrated Avionics and the Chineese the leaset, yet they are ranked the same = bogus.
6. AESA Radar – Again, the US is the world leader in AESA radar tech, yet the Russian radars are ranked higher than the F-35 even though the T&R modules of the APG-81 are better than the APG-77. Throw in LPI and this comparison is even more bogus.
7. Side AESA arrays – What data do you have that PAKFA or fro that matter SU-35 has them?
8. High Situational Awareness (SA) – Onboard/Offboard – Another bogus comparison. Again, the US is the worldwide leader in SA and you also conveniently forget the massive benefit of EODAS.
9. Supersonic Weapons Delivery – Without any evidence of a F-35 problem = bogus. I have found a F-35 simulation doc that shows data up to Mach 1.6. Apparently they think that it will do it just fine.
10. Large Thrust to Weight – How is this a 5th gen feature? Many fighters in the past have had high T2W like F-4, F-15, SU-27, Mig-25 and they are not 5th gen.
11. High Combat Ceiling – A quick check of program docs has it at 50,000+ feet, not < 45k.
12. VLO Stealth – To put the PAKFA and J-12/J-22 in the same league as the F-35 is in itself disingenuous. Russia and China have exactly ZERO experience with operational stealth aircraft. If anything, it should have been +2 for F-22, +1 for F-35, and 0 for PAKFA and J-12/J-xx.
13. Large Internal Fuel Load – The SU-35 does not disserve the +1 because it’s large load is offset by the drag from all the external weapons.
14. Internal Weapon Carriage Hard Point Stations – Damn, you got one right
Notably missing:
1. Maintenance and sustainability – The F-35 would get a +1 while the Russian and Chinese should get -1
2. ECM – Again, F-22 and F-35 get +1 while 0 for the Russians and -1 for the Chinese.
3. LPI radar functions — +1 for F-22 and F-35 while the rest get -1.
4. Open architecture systems – The F-22 = 0, F-35=+1, and the others get -1
And ANYONE who cries “foul” that the F-35 has not completed it flight testing had better be screaming at the PAKFA and Chinese numbers since they have not been seen or flown.
chockblock 6:00 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Why all the fuss about new build F-15? the APA keeps harming about re-engined F-111’s and F-22’s. Both of which Australia will never see.
4th Gen aircraft *are* death* traps. I’m a 14E. US patriot air defense. We train against 4th gen on down in AIT and 5th gen on down when we get to our line units.
W/O stealth you die much faster. I don’t care what people say about bistatic radars, using TV signals to get radar returns or some such. Pundits said it was around the corner in 1989. It will always be around the corner.
The VHF radars (no matter how much processing the Ruskies or China gives them) just can’t see as well. Stealth gets you closer and enables you to fire weapons faster than older non-stealthy designs.
The F-15 and F-16 are deader then Elvis. Get over them.
The F-22 is too expensive due to cuts and American media’s hatred of anything military. They will turn on the F-35 once that hits line units.
Linda V 6:41 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Spudman:
I had been shown previous posts of yours which led me to believe you to be somewhat articulate and, at least, suffiiciently au fait with aviation matters that you may have something of value to contribute.
Your last post has knocked that theory right out of the ball park.
For example:
1. Not knowing what Ps is or the reasons for and capabilities provided by TVC, let alone 3-D TVC which only the Russians have in production aircraft;
2. Not knowing the difference between combat ceiling and service ceiling, let alone what constitutes super cruise;
3. Not knowing, let alone appreciating, the ESM/ECM capabilities of reference threats while preferring to continue to drink “the JSF Kool-Aid”;
4. Thinking LPI techniques are somehow only resident in American manufacturers; and,
5. Not understanding that seeing/studying what has been done by others (e.g. in the area of LO technologies) provides huge advantages in design (as it has always been);
shows you to be, at least in the field of military aviation, somewhat “small potatoes”.
Sorry about that but you make even me look like an expert (which I assure you I am not).
SpudmanWP 7:10 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
“1. Not knowing what Ps is or the reasons for and capabilities provided by TVC, let alone 3-D TVC which only the Russians have in production aircraft; “
You have to ask yourself, “why do I need awesome nose-pointing ability at the cost of weight”. The answer is, lack of weapons and SA. The US has chosen superior weapons and SA.
“2. Not knowing the difference between combat ceiling and service ceiling, let alone what constitutes super cruise; “
Supercruise is > mach 1.0… period. The F-22 can do > 1.6. Will the F-35 do that, obviously not, but to say that it will not supercruise at all (before testing is complete) is bogus.
“3. Not knowing, let alone appreciating, the ESM/ECM capabilities of reference threats while preferring to continue to drink “the JSF Kool-Aid”; “
JSF kool-aid has nothing to do with it. The history of superior Western electronics over Eastern does.
“4. Thinking LPI techniques are somehow only resident in American manufacturers; and,”
Since nobody but Northrop Grumman has claimed LPI (APG-77 and 81), what else am I supposed to think? Other US AESA radars don’t even claim LPI. In order to have LPI you must have AESA and a huge amount of computing power. The F-35 will have both of these.
“5. Not understanding that seeing/studying what has been done by others (e.g. in the area of LO technologies) provides huge advantages in design (as it has always been); “
Again, nobody but the US has any operational experience with LO aircraft. Period. I did give them the benefit of the doubt and gave them a 0, not a -1.
Distiller 10:09 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Haha! Number one: The F-35 is not a fighter. It’s a fighterbomber.
And what is the “plus” of the 5th over 4th gen? I’d say
– a man-machine-interface that starts to makes the pilot part of the machine instead of having sitting him there working his buttons and levers like on a steam engine,
– and NCW compatability & capability, where on-board and off-board starts to blur,
– and a high degree of signature management over a wider part of the radio and IR spectrum, letting him see without being seen,
– leading to quasi-intuitive spherical sensory situational awareness as part of the NCW complex.
Supercruise and such is nice, but not a must. And the integration of electromagnetic combat, such as destructive ECM, is left for gen 5.5.
The F-22 could be a 5th gen fighter – if updated.
The F-35 concept is certainly 5th gen – but it’s not a fighter.
geogen 10:36 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
If anyone is interested, I posted a ‘Powerpoint reinforced’ RAAF F-35 vs F-18 Super proposal over on 16.net. I’d welcome any contribution and feedback from all sides on that point.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13159.html
A quick answer to SM, regarding your question there – It is likely the first 8 or so F-35s won’t be delivered until 2018 (end). The first squadron will apparently do extensive training in the States as part of their plan, before redeploying back home to AUS. That could be at least one year. Add 6 months or so additional readiness training back home. 2020 is a pretty fair guesstimate for RAAF’s first FOC F-35 squadron (not to mention RNoAF’s anticipated first). Granted no further delays of course..
IMHO, it’s just totally unacceptable levels of risk to assume RAAF’s F/A-18 fleet will remain the potent, frontline, full envelope capable deterrence until 2022+, when 2-3 squadrons of FOC F-35 finally replace these honorably discharged hornets.
It just seems most feasible and rational that 2015-16 should perhaps see the first hornet squadron replaced by the 2nd operational Super squadron (expanding on that developing common infrastructure and logistics), armed with planned NACC phase weapons. Respectfully..
geogen 10:58 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
As for ‘what constitutes a 5th gen’? I’m going to catch flak, but it could be argued a block 20 F-22 would not even qualify (give her a 4.5+). Increment 3.1 barely, as an entry level 5th gen. Increment 3.2 with 5th gen qualifying AAM loadout and 5th gen coms would be legit 5 G – perhaps by 2015?? Crazy policy planning, IMO. (just as an outsider).
VLO is good, but VLO reliability as well. All aspect LO to qualify points. Strong super-cruise (not an F-16XL with 32k lb power ability) to qualify. High alt combat maneuvering. Superior rate of climb at high alt. LO communications, networking. Obvious LPI sensors and strong passive sensor. Ability to employ 5th gen weapons AA/AG.
I will give F-35 block V a true 5th gen rating overall with upgraded sensor integration, upgraded self-defense and weapon system management, and upgraded net-work coms capability all offsets to lower performance oriented points as detraction.
Block IV IMHO is borderline entry level 5th with upgraded potential infrastructure and increased sensor integration. I’m sorry but Block III is just a fancy US-philosophy characteristic for a 4.5+ gen, albeit w/ LO aspects (and w/LO 5th gen coms). My views only.. we’ll have to wait 4 yrs perhaps to get a better assessment and I’d be first to concede upon further review, sure.
steve 11:26 am on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Definately time to rethink the uber pig with the F119. We could pick up a corpse or two from the boneyard to regen the RAAF Capability. This would have the added benefit of reskilling the RAAF.
1. Supercruising – F-111s (+1)
2. High Agility Supersonic/Subsonic – F-111s (-1)
3. High Specific Excess Power – Ps – F-111s (+1)
4. TVC – F-111s (+1)
5. Highly Integrated Avionics – F-111s (+1)
6. AESA Radar – F-111s (+1)
7. Side AESA arrays – F-111s (-1)
8. High Situational Awareness (SA) – F-111s (+1)
9. Supersonic Weapons Delivery – F-111s (+1)
10. Large Thrust to Weight – F-111s (-1)
11. High Combat Ceiling – A quick check of program docs has it at 50,000+ feet, not < 45k. F-111s (+1)
12. VLO Stealth – F-111s (0 partial forward quarter through treated canopy, frequency tuned nosecone, RAM leading edges + intakes)
13. Large Internal Fuel Load – F-111s (+1)
14. Internal Weapon Carriage Hard Point Stations – F-111s (+1)
I think with a score of +7 it is better than both the F22 and PAKFA!
Yep,
Should have gone with the Uber Pig.
Bushranger 71 7:33 pm on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Methinks Pete Goon’s letter would have had more impact had he included the F15 and F16 for comparison.
The RAAF made a flawed judgement in my view in opting for the F-18A over the F-16 on the basis that twin engines were essential and the Hornet had a superior radar at the time.
The additional procurement and operating costs for twin-engined birds is hard to justify for an air combat role when the great performance of the F-16 is considered. What was completely overlooked by many was the enormous growth potential of that aircraft.
The point has been reached where the massive arms conglomerates are pricing military hardware beyond what can reasonably be afforded and technical complexity is limiting operational availability of hugely expensive resources. Some losses have to be expected in combat and cost-effective conduct of warfare has to be a major consideration.
Arguably, stealth might be over-promoted like network centric warfare and optimized second tier hardware (like F-111) that can provide adequate credible military capabilities would make more sense to taxpayers.
Similarly for helos. Upgrading Chinook, Blackhawk, Iroquois (to Huey II), Kiowa could have provided adequate battlefield capabilities and perhaps naval support needs for the ADF whereas near $6billion has been recklessly forfeited largely on unproven types with another $2billion or so being contemplated.
The consequences of the global financial crisis will seemingly endure for years and could yet worsen although seemingly been treated frivolously by Australian defence planners and politicians with nobody being held accountable for profligate spending.
Firefox 10:50 pm on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
IMHO: APA guys are certainly privy to some information we are not. They are not putting together powepoint slides to conjure some wishful thinking, but rather try to send some warnings via their page to decision makers. It may sound like some crazy stuff, but APA are not taken as lighweight by insiders, aka intelligence and aerospace community. Opposite is true for most comments of current SOD Gates on F-35 and F-22. Sad but true.
I wouldn´t be so sure T-50 has not flown yet, but in terms of IOC, getting a prototype in the air couple one year sooner or later plays little role. What is more crucial is program structure – how many of T-50 technologies are mature (radar, sensors, airframe, materials, dynamic components). Only Sukhoi/Russian MoD know that. More disturbing is where T-50 design is heading: operational weight close to where F-22 was intended to be, top speed limited to M 2 to give more space to composites and save more weight. Superb wing loading, 3 D TVC, long range missiles inside missile bays, great control authority. More of 5 + generation jet than 5. I´m also absolutely sure T-50 will bring couple of small or bigger novelties to the aviation world. Cheaper to build than F-35, F-22 or Typhoon, if they manage to achieve peak production over 40 units a year starting 2020 (not impossible if we look at 2010 4 + and ++ airframe procurement by VVS and their navy). Think what this could do with air power balance in Europe from 2020 and on. End every year it would only get worse. If Europe NATO countries make up their minds (big if) and find out limited use of A-G F-35 versus specialised A-A T-50, to build a jet to match T-50 will take some 20 years, if not more. It is already too late.
Bjørnar Bolsøy 11:07 pm on November 9, 2009 Permalink |
Linda,
You’ll have to excuse my lack of neuance (and the time difference). I didn’t overlook APA’s 5th generation factors (other than those that are missing), but rather the scores. APA’s facts on the F-35 are mostly half-truths or simply wrong. *Fact* is that the F-35 will be able to deploy weapon bay AAMs througout its envelope, up to its maximum speed. It will even deploy 2000 lb JDAMs supersonically, go past Mach 1.6 with over 2.5 tons of weapons and pull 9G’s with that load, even if the fuel state has to settle a bit. That’s pretty much in a class of its own for the time being.
Fact is that considerable engine growth is factored into the design and the aircraft is expected to hold just above the Mach in MIL, although I wouldn’t call it ’supercruising’. I base that not on speculation, but interviews with USAF, Lockheed Martin and Norwegian Air Force resources as part of my F-35 book research, media chronicles and F-16.net contributions.
As far as being misled most reliable sources, not at least the JSF Joint Operational Requirements Document, claim that the F-35 has been designed with clean F-16 B50 and F-18C-like performances, and that it will substantially outperform those in a tactical loadout. Thus a hint at the F-35s performances can be had by looking at these two, who’s envelopes are fairly well established. The F-16 is still pretty much in the top league when it comes to the high subsonic and transsonic regime (where thrust-vectoring is of little use) and it is no sloth beyond the Mach either. The F/A-18 excells in the high AOA and slow turning regime. Put those two together and you have an agile and capable aircraft over a reasonably large envelope. In a stealthy airframe. Actually, that’s almost precisely what the F-35 chief test pilot John Beesley riterated in an interview a couple weeks ago. http://tinyurl.com/yg45etv
However, having spoken to a few pilots on the issue of BFM, I know that all fighter aircraft have strenghts and weaknesses throughout the envelope. This will almost certainly apply to the new Russian and Chinese fighters as well (it’s usually done in the past). I’ve also learned that most dogfights, if lasting more a turn or two at the merge, will quickly find itself in the subsonic regime even if the starting point was above the Mach.
Will the F-35 be super-agile (what ever that implies in real terms) or excell at Mach 2/55K feet? Probably not. Likewise, is it likely that Russia and China will catch up with American VLO, sensor and avionics capability within the next decade? I don’t see much evidence of that. And it’s going to be very interesting to see what kind of weight-stealth-engine compromises comes out of these designs in the end. I suspect they will follow tradition for a while still; try to make up for lack of refinement with brute force and numbers.
Thus the F-35 will enjoy a substantial SA and tactical advantage for some time to come, which incidently is what the Norwegian combat evaluations (and almost certainly the Dutch ones) showed quite clearly; against notional PAK-FA, SU-35 and SA-20 engagements the F-35 came through with comparably few losses. http://tinyurl.com/y9o72bu http://tinyurl.com/ye9btc8
In the meantime the inbound high flyer at Mach 2/55K (and clumsy pressure suit?) will present a favorable IR and radar signature against the emptyness of space. And it’s not like the F-35 can’t reach those regimes if required. Judging by the diagrams in this GAO report, even the F-18s can: (p. 84) http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?NSIAD-96-98 Though I will grant you that the F-35 will gobble fuel and present its own IR-disadvantage in this regime.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
RSF 5:03 am on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
Just a few more comments to add to this excellent discussion:
1. Situational awareness does not in anyway replace maneuverability and speed. At any point during an engagement, the ability to maneuver may be called upon to break missile lock. This is more important then ever with the advent of 4th and 5th generation missiles, capable of high g maneuverability and off-bore sight lock-on. This entire argument reminds me of the stupid “we won’t need guns anymore” nonsense that was refuted in two wars.
2. The lack of speed of the F-35 will doom it in dog fights with planes capable of engaging and breaking off at will. Once a F-35 has expended its limited missile load, disengaging will not be an option (and pilots will die).
3. Stating that supercruising starts at Mach 1 is pretty funny when going up against planes that are so much faster then the F-35. The SU-35 has a top speed of Mach 2.25 vs. the F-35’s top speed of Mach 1.67.
4. The idea that the US has superior missiles/weapons pretty much ended with the introduction of the Vympel R-73. Ditto for Radar.The latest IRBIS-E PESA for the SU-35 has several capabilities not seen in Western radar systems and demonstrates that situational awareness is not owned by just western fighters and the F-35.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ab967dc21-1763-4f29-802d-a091b5e6495f