So many NATO countries and many of her allies joined the US in the Joint Strike Fighter program in which the allies all began developing a state of the art stealth fighter perfect for first strike short range operations that need to be dealt with swiftly. When the fighter began development no other countries had similar fighter jets the F35 appeared to be a true next generation fighter. But as the years went by Russia and China both unveiled advanced fighters of their own. Then we all remember the US was hacked and nearly 2 Tera bytes of confidential stealth technology info from the JSF program was stolen by China.

Now China has their own air craft the J20 which according to defence analysts could take out an F35 with ease it can out maneuver it and out run it not to mention it has newer and upgraded stealth tech that make it nearly invisible to the ground as wellvas an F35.

I recently discussed the issue with some of our defence reporters here in Canada. That Canada needs a defence fighter jet and the F35 is currently the best one we could choose. However it does not meet our needs neither does any other currently available fighter jet.

Now I understand how if all the allies used the same state of the art fighter they would be far easier to maintain and identify cooperative missions would be easier everyone would know each others air craft capabilities. However limiting NATO countries largely to a single stealth fighter sort of limits our capabilities. So we have a strike fighter perfect for first strike operations in the Middle East, Africa and some parts of Asia. But suddenly one of our allies is under attack. Say Canada or Norway or another country. Now if we are all using a fighter built for attacking and built for a warmer climate what good would our fighters be in defending? What if we needed to defend against other state of the art fighters from China or Russia? We would almost all be using the same air craft. Also no the other EU fighter jets wouldn't be able to handle J20's or T50's.

my suggestion would be for all the main allies to cooperate and share technology amongst each other for the most part. But each country design their own combat air craft if possible. So countries with strong aerospace industries use the JSF program to design their own fighter jets. Now Canada has their own stealth fighter designed for long range stealth air defence built to operate best in a arctic climate but also capable of fighting in the desert. While the US has its own specialized F35 designed for first strike offensive actions best suited for attack missions, relying largely on Canada's fighters in NORAD to handle Northern air defence. Britain builds a variant of Canada's fighter designed to be able to fly across Europe stealthily able to land well on Air Craft carriers maybe even feature Harrier like abilities making it best suited for amphibious assaults. Japan designs its version for short range defence. Specifically a short range fighter nearly impossible to detect designed for air to air and air to water combat. Its built to take on naval vessels and enemy stealth air craft. In the end all the fighters would be unique yet all the countries would be sharing some of the technology. Each country would build the fighters themselves guaranteeing a lower cost and jobs for their struggling economies. Then allies across Europe or other parts of the globe could now buy state of the art fighter jets. Every NNato ally could now buy the fighter that best suites them from the ally they need. So you need a short range naval defence air craft well you buy the Japanese fighter you need a long range arctic stealth defence craft the Canadian fighter is your best shot. You want a first strike assault stealth fighter to intervene in another country get the American specialized F35

I really don't see the advantage to all of our countries using the same fighter jet. It will work amazing for coordinated assaults but not necessarily defence. Not to mention if we went to war in a region the fighter isn't suited for or against an enemy fighter built to defend that region. It makes far more sense to have a selection of five or so stealth fighters all specializing in different scenarios and

Sorry for any errors if it doesn't. Make sense its a phone based typo. Example that EU fighters would be able to take on J20's and T50's!

The F-35 is pretty utilitarian isn't it?

The problem with everyone designing their own aircraft is you are essentially spending large amounts of time and money doing the same thing, for slightly different outcomes.

Why do that when one team could be building a fighter, another team an advanced stealth bomber, another better more full powered drones and a 4th better missiles or helicopters.

Having a more advanced overall army would outweigh having different fighters in my opinion. Especially considering now a days they serve mostly as a deterrent.

Plus i mean, all of those countries would actually have to be willing to design weapons. Not sure they are really willing to invest that much.  I really don't think they are.

Kasz what if the Joint Strike Fighter program remained in tact but the F35 not remaining the primary fighter. All the JSF countries share technology and information with one another. But several fighters are designed for different regions and purposes. Rather then a single F35 a Canadian built Northern defence fighter perfect for use in Europe and parts of Asia. An assault first strike fighter built for a wide variety of regions much like the F35. A defensive fighter built for more warm temperatures. Different fighters built for different regions and purposes rather then a single multipurpose fighter that can't out perform Chinese or Russian fighters?

The JSF program countries could also use each others weapons systems allowing Nato and other JSF nations to use fighters equipped with the best tech available to them and best for their individual needs.

This would cut down severely on R&D and ensure that all of the fighters could coordinate and work together. While ensuring that the allies have a fighter built specifically for any purpose they require. So you would have like four JSF jets that would be built by big players and sold to individual countries. The purchasing countries could then modify the fighters with accessories best suited for their nations particular needs.

I cant see all the allies flying a single fighter that cant take on a J20 or T50 wouldn't be great for long range defensive operations in cold northern regions. The fighter would limit the allies it would help greatly in fighting Arab countries or African countries. But would be poorly suited for Canada much of Europe and Asia.

The JSF looks like a great aircraft which is why the Royal Air Force has ordered 50 of them to replace our Harriers that we scrapped last year (stupid decision IMO) Yet it looks like theres a slight problem. The planes will not be able to land on the aircraft carriers that are being built for the Royal Navy, the HMS Queen Eliabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Simulated landings have all failed. The landing hook is too close to the wheels to work. Due to this problem the project will need a redesign or Britain will scrap it. One of many cock ups currently affecting the British Armed Forces.

I'm not an expert on the F35 but, from my very limited understanding, it seems like a very good choice to meet the basic needs of all of the allies involved ...

There are few planes with the capabilities of the F35 that will be as inexpensive to obtain and maintain; and, being that most conflicts involve joint forces, it seems like a remarkably good idea that all of the allies share as much equipment as possible.

Remain of course, the money-sucking machine should be kept working!

The fewer battle ready aircrafts are there, the fewer pilots will be familiar with the tech, the smaller maintance infrastructare will be, the smaller ammount of cash will go to smth actually worthwile like F/A-18E/F. General brasshats are happy, we're happy, everyone's happy.

Still seems expensive for fighters that have a 90% chance of not ever being used in a serious fighter on fighter battle.

Also i'd note, if the F-35 couldn't beat the J20, China wouldn't be trying to make the J60.

Joelcool7 said: So many NATO countries and many of her allies joined the US in the Joint Strike Fighter program in which the allies all began developing a state of the art stealth fighter perfect for first strike short range operations that need to be dealt with swiftly. When the fighter began development no other countries had similar fighter jets the F35 appeared to be a true next generation fighter. Oh, the PR :D The correct term'd be VLO btw, it's much more appropriate rather than stealth. But as the years went by Russia and China both unveiled advanced fighters of their own. Then we all remember the US was hacked and nearly 2 Tera bytes of confidential stealth technology info from the JSF program was stolen by China. Yet, nothing on J-20 is crying out "stealth aicraft". Front horizontal empenage doesn't go very well with it, and you don't need to steal anything in order to install zigzag-edged chasis shaft cover as mean of reducing observability in radio range. Is pretty much well known that J-20 is combination of tech based on J-10 (Lavi tech sold by Israel) and anything Chinese have learned from it, MiG 1.44 (sold by us) and some inspiration that came from F-22, and the whole thing being taliroed for ASM carrier role, which is logical choice for China given posible threats, VLO is not priority here. Now China has their own air craft the J20 which according to defence analysts could take out an F35 with ease it can out maneuver it and out run it not to mention it has newer and upgraded stealth tech that make it nearly invisible to the ground as wellvas an F35. LOL, if anything I'd bet on F35, though both beasts are flying coffins in that regard :D Mainly because of their roles that doesn't imply maneuverability. And for J-20 it's worse due to engine issues, which makes the whole programme rather questionable, because if we won't sell them AL-31s they're stuck with home-made near-zero resource WS-10s or WS-15, which will be supposedely developed god knows when .  I recently discussed the issue with some of our defence reporters here in Canada. That Canada needs a defence fighter jet and the F35 is currently the best one we could choose. However it does not meet our needs neither does any other currently available fighter jet. Now I understand how if all the allies used the same state of the art fighter they would be far easier to maintain and identify cooperative missions would be easier everyone would know each others air craft capabilities. However limiting NATO countries largely to a single stealth fighter sort of limits our capabilities. So we have a strike fighter perfect for first strike operations in the Middle East, Africa and some parts of Asia. But suddenly one of our allies is under attack. Say Canada or Norway or another country. Now if we are all using a fighter built for attacking and built for a warmer climate what good would our fighters be in defending? What if we needed to defend against other state of the art fighters from China or Russia? We would almost all be using the same air craft. Also no the other EU fighter jets wouldn't be able to handle J20's or T50's. Oh my :D I dont very well understand the childish premise of F-35 opposing J-20 and PAK FA just like that. Haven't you come to the idea that all aircrafts are designed with different set of functions in mind? J-20 being ASM carrier-interceptor and F35 is ground strike fighter (down-looking EOTS is kinda telling, compare it to frontal-looking PAK FA EOTS and you get the idea how different all of them are). my suggestion would be for all the main allies to cooperate and share technology amongst each other for the most part. But each country design their own combat air craft if possible. Do you understand to what shitstorm it'll lead to and what kind of opposition any ideas of the sort will meet? Yeah, Lockheed lobby will keep silence, just like that. There were troubles even in sharing part of the software with Turks and you're talking about giving up a big portions of profits. Not gonna happen. So countries with strong aerospace industries use the JSF program to design their own fighter jets. Now Canada has their own stealth fighter designed for long range stealth air defence built to operate best in a arctic climate but also capable of fighting in the desert. While the US has its own specialized F35 designed for first strike offensive actions best suited for attack missions, relying largely on Canada's fighters in NORAD to handle Northern air defence. Nobody cares about NORAD, and nobody puts that much epmhasis on aircraft part in air-defense system (well, except for us, lol, with MiG-31s as the only dedicated interceptor in service, while F-35 would be an immensely sucky interceptor). The only thing that could possibly threaten NORAD is our strategic aviation, which though doesn't even need to enter your air-space to attack. Though in terms of non-conventional weapons strategic aviation is rather irrelevant and small, at least compared to SLBMs and ground missiles facilities. And in terms of conventional threat... well, there're no threats. Who? Mexico?  :D  hat's why nobody cares and NORAD is relatevly underdeveloped. Britain builds a variant of Canada's fighter designed to be able to fly across Europe stealthily able to land well on Air Craft carriers maybe even feature Harrier like abilities making it best suited for amphibious assaults. Really? Just like that? Japan designs its version for short range defence. Specifically a short range fighter nearly impossible to detect designed for air to air and air to water combat. Its built to take on naval vessels and enemy stealth air craft. In the end all the fighters would be unique yet all the countries would be sharing some of the technology. Each country would build the fighters themselves guaranteeing a lower cost and jobs for their struggling economies. Then allies across Europe or other parts of the globe could now buy state of the art fighter jets. Every NNato ally could now buy the fighter that best suites them from the ally they need. So you need a short range naval defence air craft well you buy the Japanese fighter you need a long range arctic stealth defence craft the Canadian fighter is your best shot. You want a first strike assault stealth fighter to intervene in another country get the American specialized F35 I really don't see the advantage to all of our countries using the same fighter jet. It will work amazing for coordinated assaults but not necessarily defence. Not to mention if we went to war in a region the fighter isn't suited for or against an enemy fighter built to defend that region. It makes far more sense to have a selection of five or so stealth fighters all specializing in different scenarios and

I mean we're all laymen in the field. My personal interest never came out of sporadic reading on the matter and personal experience working as Buk-M1 SAM operator, though the latter is more about how to effectively take aircraft down, rather than jet fighters per se. Yet Joel never cease to amaze :D

Kasz216 said: Still seems expensive for fighters that have a 90% chance of not ever being used in a serious fighter on fighter battle. Also i'd note, if the F-35 couldn't beat the J20, China wouldn't be trying to make the J60.

USAF pilots already stated that the J20 has all of the latest stealth technology and more it can out maneuver the F35 and its stealth is more advanced. The F35 is also primarily a strike fighter and not a defensive air to air combat fighter. The J20 is a superior air craft if we are talking technology alone. I am far less knowledgeable about the T50 but my buddy who reports here in Canada with the DND says that even the T50 could drop a 35 if they got in a air battle. The F35 was not defined as a defensive air craft nor was it designed to take on other fifth generation fighter jets. I talked to Liberal and NDP defence critics recently that echoed this stating the F35 is an inferior fighter to the J20/T50. However they all state modified F22's actually pose the best combat capable air craft to intercept or fight a J20. As for it being next to impossible for our F35's to be involved in an air battle. With the US boosting its presence in Asia and tensions with China over the South China sea and other issues. The idea that an airborne conflict might occur are rising drastically. Now I am less positive that China will actually wage war with the US directly. But the J20 might wreak havoc on one of our allies in Asia. A 100 J20's could cripple a country like the Philippines in a matter of days. Taiwan no problem and the US is going to do what to put the fear of God into China? Snap F35's which couldn't actually defeat Chinese air force? Now pilots I have seen interviewed on the subject have stated that the American air force has far superior pilots and that despite the Chinese having a technically superior air craft that American ingenuity would win out. Also you mention how China is already hard at work on their next fighter jet to replace the J20. Yet our F35's are still years from service that should be sending alarm bells.