Imagine 108+ FGFAs accompanied by another 180+ stealth LCAs,something that we could achieve faster than the AMCA...that would give our mortal enemies the sharp end of the stick to chew upon.
The need for a cheaper single-pilot med. aircraft was meant to be the MMRCA/Rafale.Too expensive it has been found.The point is that whatever the payload meant to be carried by a med 4++ fighter,cannot be carried by a stealth bird internally! It either has to be larger,or carry external loads reducing stealth.The whole point of stealth being the silver bullet advantage over the enemy then goes kaput. Yes,the USAF/USN have worked out the JSF for their needs,but there are limitations and is it as capable as the F-22? Bomb trucks with LR stealthy missiles are a cheaper alternative at delivering munitions and replacing the A-10 with the JSF for close support duties has been questioned extensively within the US itself whether it will be equal to the task and as survivable as the A-10.
There is a (dated) analysis of the JSF (Aus Airpower),in which its inherent design limitations cannot be changed by later upgrades.Too long to post,but it shows that long-term,the F-22 is a far better aircraft to possess with greater inherent ability to grow in capability as technology develops.
The AMCA as depicted in its current avatar,expected by 2030 only,will be dated when it arrives,and severely limited in payload internally.If one reads in the analysis below on the JSF/F-22 comparison, the cost factor analysis shows that for little extra,the larger fighter is the preferable choice.JSF costs come down only when built in bulk.It's why I'm advocating a stealth LCA instead of the MK-2,whose primary task is air combat,secondary close air support and strike with PGMs that can fit into its internal weapons' bay/s.It will take much redesigning but will be worth it.Rafales,upgraded M2Ks,MIG-29s should bear the brunt for another decade,with the secret UCAV tasked for the deep strike role. The IAF wopuld be better off with acquiring more FGFAs which being larger,can carry more stores internally and absorb tech/improvements as they come,giving a much greater capability than the much smaller AMCA.http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II
Joint Strike Fighter
Assessing the Joint Strike Fighter
JSF limitations click for more...
The technological design features of a fighter can be divided by the rate at which they evolve over time. The smartest long term choices are always those which put the highest priority on design features which cannot be altered once the aircraft is in service, accepting that rapidly changing technologies will be replaced over the life of the aircraft. The most attractive aspects of the JSF are all in areas which rapidly evolve, whereas its least attractive aspects are in areas which cannot evolve. From a technological strategy perspective the JSF is a very poor choice long term compared to the F-22A (Author).