How Quarantine Bubbles Limit Coronavirus Risk – and Fight Loneliness When done carefully, quarantine bubbles can limit the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 while allowing people to have much needed social interactions with their friends and family. by Melissa Hawkins

After three months of lockdowns, many people in the U.S. and around the world are turning to quarantine bubbles, pandemic pods or quaranteams in an effort to balance the risks of the pandemic with the emotional and social needs of life.

I am an epidemiologist and a mother of four, three of whom are teenagers in the throes of their risk-taking years. As the country grapples with how to navigate new risks in the world, my kids and I are doing the same.

When done carefully, the research shows that quarantine bubbles can effectively limit the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 while allowing people to have much needed social interactions with their friends and family.

Reduce risk if you can’t eliminate it

A quaranteam is a small group of people who form their own social circle to quarantine together – and a perfect example of a harm reduction strategy.

Harm reduction is a pragmatic public health concept that explicitly acknowledges that all risk cannot be eliminated, so it encourages the reduction of risk. Harm reduction approaches also take into consideration the intersection of biological, psychological and social factors that influence both health and behavior.

For example, abstinence-only education doesn’t work all that well. Safe-sex education, on the other hand, seeks to limit risk, not eliminate it, and is better at reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection.

Quarantine bubbles are a way to limit the risk of getting or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 while expanding social interaction.

Mental health matters too

Staying indoors, avoiding all contact with friends or family and having food and groceries delivered would be the best way to limit your risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. But the risks of the pandemic extend beyond the harm from infection. Health encompasses mental as well as physical well-being.

The negative mental health impacts of the pandemic are already starting to become evident. A recent survey of U.S. adults found that 13.6% reported symptoms of serious psychological distress, up from 3.9% in 2018. A quarter of people 18 to 29 years old reported serious psychological distress, the highest levels of all ages groups. Many people are experiencing anxiety and depression due to the pandemic or were already living with these challenges. Loneliness certainly doesn’t help.

Loneliness and social isolation increase the risk for depression and anxiety and can also lead to increases in the risk for serious physical diseases like coronary heart disease, stroke and premature death.

Quaranteams, therefore, are not simply a convenient idea because they let people see their friends and family. Isolation poses serious health risks – both physically and mentally – that social bubbles can help alleviate while improving social well-being and quality of life.

Social network theory shows that quaranteams work

Social relationships enhance well-being and mental health but they also act as a vehicle for infection transmission. As people around the world emerge from lockdowns, this is the conundrum: How do we increase social interaction while limiting the risk of spread?

A recent study used social network theory – how information spreads among groups of people – and infectious disease models to see if quaranteams would work in this pandemic.

To do that, the researchers built computer models of social interactions to measure how the virus spread. They built a model of typical behavior, of typical behavior but with only half the number of interactions and of three different social distancing approaches that also had half the number of interactions as normal.

The first social distancing scenario grouped people by characteristics – people would only see people of a similar age, for example. The second scenario grouped people by local communities and limited inter-community interaction. The last scenario limited interactions to small social groups of mixed characteristics from various locations – i.e. quarantine bubbles. These bubbles could have people of all ages and from various neighborhoods, but those people would only interact with each other.

All of the social distancing measures reduced the severity of the pandemic and were also better than simply reducing interactions at random, but the quaranteam approach was the most effective at flattening the curve. Compared to no social distancing, quarantine bubbles would delay the peak of infections by 37%, decrease the height of the peak by 60% and result in 30% fewer infected individuals overall.

Other countries are starting to incorporate quaranteams in their prevention guidelines now that infection rates are low and contact tracing programs are in place. England is the latest country to announce quaranteam guidance with their support bubble policy.

New Zealand implemented a quarantine bubble strategy in early May and it seems to have worked. Additionally, a recent survey of 2,500 adults in England and New Zealand found a high degree of support for the policies and high degree of motivation to comply.

How to build a quarantine bubble

To make an effective quaranteam, here’s what you need to do.

First, everyone must agree to follow the rules and be honest and open about their actions. Individual behavior can put the whole team at risk and the foundation of a quaranteam is trust. Teams should also talk in advance about what to do if someone breaks the rules or is exposed to an infected person. If someone starts to show symptoms, everyone should agree to self-isolate for 14 days.

Second, everyone must decide how much risk is acceptable and establish rules that reflect this decision. For example, some people might feel OK about having a close family member visit but others may not. Our family has agreed that we only visit with friends outside, not inside, and that everyone must wear masks at all times.

Finally, people need to actually follow the rules, comply with physical distancing outside of the quaranteam and be forthcoming if they think they may have been exposed.

Additionally, communication should be ongoing and dynamic. The realities of the pandemic are changing at a rapid pace and what may be OK one day might be too risky for some the next.

The risks of joining a quaranteam

Any increase in social contact is inherently more risky right now. There are two important ideas in particular that a person should consider when thinking about how much risk they’re willing to take.

The first is asymptomatic spread. Current data suggests that at any given time, anywhere between 20% and 45% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic and able to transmit the virus to others. The best way to know if someone is infected or not is to get tested, so some people might consider requiring testing before agreeing to join a quaranteam.

The second thing to consider is that consequences of getting sick are not the same for everyone. If you or someone you live with has another health condition – like asthma, diabetes, a heart condition or a compromised immune system – the assessment of risk and reward from a quaranteam should change. The consequences of a high-risk person developing COVID-19 are much more serious.

One of the greatest difficulties facing both scientists and the public alike is the uncertainty about this virus and what lies ahead. But some things are known. If individuals are informed and sincere in their quaranteam efforts and follow the regular guidance of social distancing, mask wearing and enthusiastic hand-washing, quaranteams can offer a robust and structured middle ground approach to manage risk while experiencing the joy and benefits of friends and family. These are things we could all benefit from these days, and for now, quaranteams may be the best step forward as we emerge from this pandemic together.

Russia Has a New Way to Make Its Air Force Even More Powerful (Not Stealth) But a helmet. by Peter Suciu

The Russian Aerospace Force (Air Force) will soon receive deliveries of an advanced but more importantly domestically-produced helmet-mounted target acquisition and display system for its MiG aircraft beginning next year. This is a major step as the previous versions of the helmets were produced in neighboring Ukraine, a situation that almost seems ironic given the recent history between the two nations.

However, even as relations between the Ukraine and Russia remain tenuous there is no denying that the countries’ shared history has only made things very complicated when it comes to military hardware. The military-industrial complexes have been integrated—a relic of the Soviet Union, as Moscow planners deliberately located key manufacturing in various Soviet republics to increase national unity.

As a result, some advanced equipment crucial to Russia has been produced in Ukraine, but since 2014 when the cooperation between the two countries in the military-technical sphere was suspended, Moscow has been seeking to domestically produce what it was previously importing.

The Electroautomatics Experimental Design Bureau started the process of developing a domestic version of the helmet-mounted target acquisition and display systems for aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Force's tactical aviation back in 2016 to replace Ukrainian versions.

“As for the planes developed by the Mikoyan firm [MiG aircraft], the devices that we demonstrated from the viewpoint of substituting the imported Ukrainian systems with our versions on Sukhoi planes, which was done, precisely the same work is underway for replacing the items on the aircraft developed by the Mikoyan firm,” Electroautomatics First Deputy CEO Anatoly Shukalov told Russian state media on Tuesday.

“In principle, next year [we will begin the deliveries to the troops] and nothing impedes this process,” Shukalov added. “The system itself is autonomous and has undergone trials. Only the mathematical software has to be finalized for interaction with the aircraft’s systems.”

The domestically produced helmet-mounted displays will replace the imported Ukrainian Sura version. The target acquisition and display system is currently used on the Su-27SM3, Su-30SM and Su-35S aircraft.

While reports haven’t stated its costs, it is likely far less than the advanced helmet used in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which cost upwards of $400,000 each! 

The F-35’s advanced helmet-mounted display was developed as a joint venture between Collins Aerospace in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and by Elbit Systems of America in Fort Worth, Texas. It serves as the pilot's primary display system replacing the traditional heads-up display (HUD). Lockheed Martin described the helmet in detail: “The F-35’s Helmet Mounted Display Systems provide pilots with unprecedented situational awareness. All the information pilots need to complete their missions—airspeed, heading, altitude, targeting information and warnings—is projected on the helmet’s visor, rather than on a traditional Heads-up Display.”

A Ukrainian Defence Industry pamphlet offers similar praise of its SURA helmet system: “The SURA helmet-mounted target designation system is intended for quick aiming of guided weapon and viewing systems at visual targets by pilot’s head turn without aircraft course change. The upgraded version of the SURA HMTDS—the SURA-I is intended for aiming and flight information displaying in the pilot’s field-of-view. The new and serial helmet-mounted units are identical by form, weight and dimensions, attaching-mechanical and electrical parameters.” 

The Russian Electroautomatics Experimental Design Bureau hasn’t provided any details on the capabilities of its domestically-produced helmeted-mounted target acquisition and display but it is likely the features would be similar to the SURA HMTDS.  

Is Saudi Arabia Making the President and Congress “Real Enemies”? "Any way you could avoid Congress and neutralize its power was considered some sort of success.” by Matthew Petti

Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration of treating Congress as “the real enemy” as they slammed arms sales to Saudi Arabia in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is under fire for ousting State Department watchdog Steve Linick, who says senior officials tried to “bully” him for investigating a U.S. arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

Pompeo had reportedly pushed President Donald Trump to declare a state of emergency last year in order to sell weapons without approval from Congress.

“The administration made it clear…that Congress was the real enemy,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D–Calif.) said during a hearing on Wednesday. “Any way you could avoid Congress and neutralize its power was considered some sort of success.”

The hearing was called to discuss the merits of U.S. arms sales to Arab monarchies, but Democrats made it clear that they also had a problem with the process.

Rep. Ted Deutch (D–Fla.) opened the hearing by claiming that the Trump administration “undermined congressional oversight” by “forcing through” the arms sales.

Pompeo told Congress in May 2019 that “an emergency exists, which requires the immediate sale of the defense articles and defense services” to several Middle Eastern kingdoms.

Members of Congress had objected to U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

But the emergency declaration, rubber-stamped by Trump, allowed the administration to move forward with an $8.1 billion deal without approval from Congress.

Former Pentagon official Andrew Exum testified on Wednesday that such a move was never “part of the discussion” when he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy in 2015 and 2016.

“When I was serving on two occasions in the Department of Defense during the Obama administration, I think we actually had a pretty good working relationship with the U.S. Congress” on arms sales, he said. “The conversation was very robust. Hard questions were asked, but ultimately we were able to arrive at good outcomes.”

President Barack Obama oversaw over $110 billion worth of U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi-led campaign in Yemen began in 2015. The Obama administration cut off the sale of cluster bombs and precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia over a year later.

Precision-guided munitions were part of the arms deal pushed through by Trump and Pompeo last year.

Republicans defend the weapons sales to Saudi Arabia as a necessity for countering “unprecedented threats from the Iranian regime,” as Rep. Joe Wilson (R–S.C.) said during Wednesday’s hearing.

“This region of the world has always been pivotal in world history, and I believe it’s more important today,” said Wilson, the highest-ranking Republican on the committee. “We have real partners and friends .....

Yes, You Can Support Black Lives Matter And Still Hold Racist Views What if at some deeper level, there is some independent system which is more susceptible to racial bias? by Geoff Beattie

The touch paper has been lit. Black Lives Matter have taken to the streets. The revolution has started – statues have been pulled down and TV programmes have been removed from streaming services. Apologies are also coming in thick and fast – a tearful Keith Lemon actor, a “sincerely sorry” Ant and Dec. Many white people are now joining the cause, stating their views on social media and beyond.

But racism is about action in everyday life, not just words or hashtags at a time of uprising. We can be careful about what we say – language is conscious and controllable. But it is perfectly possible to hold deep-seated racist views, sometimes subconsciously, and simultaneously announce you are definitely not racist.

Some ten years ago, I started looking into the vexed question of the under-representation of people from BAME backgrounds in academic and senior posts in universities. Universities were publically wringing their hands about this issue. It was emotionally charged with accusations of racial prejudice on the one hand, and the idea that racism is all in the past, with people just trying to get advantage by crying prejudice, on the other.

But what if most of us, at a conscious level, are no longer prone to open racial prejudice? What if at some deeper level, there is some independent system which is more susceptible to racial bias? This was the question we explored using the now well-known implicit association test.

The basis for identifying bias in such tests is how quickly people associate white or black faces and names with concepts like “good” or “bad”. Research has shown that white people are quicker at associating white faces or names with the concept “good” than they are for black faces or names.

We tried to improve on the well-known Harvard test, where all the faces are unfriendly, by making all faces nice and smiley. Surely, there would be no implicit racial bias here. Not so. We found a medium to strong implicit pro-white bias in white participants. This was regardless of what attitudes to race they reported that they had.

We also studied the shortlisting process for academic jobs experimentally. We presented participants with the CVs of four job candidates – two white, two BAME – for various positions with identical (but rotated) CVs. We also used a remote eye tracker to see what part of the CV they looked at on a computer screen.

We found that white experimental participants were ten times more likely to shortlist two white candidates for a lectureship post than two BAME candidates with exactly the same CV. We also found that white participants spent more time looking at good information on the CVs of white candidates and bad information on the CVs of BAME candidates.

Combating implicit bias

In other words, our “rational” decisions about the suitability of candidates are based on biased pattern of fixation. This is the reality of prejudice in action, working away below the level of consciousness. The practical implications are clear. We should never use “first thoughts” or “gut instincts” as a basis for shortlisting, and never conduct any shortlisting meetings under strict time pressure. The more time pressure, the more powerful the effects of these implicit processes will be.

A helpful tool may be “implementation intentions” – which are conscious plans to override unconscious instincts. This may be in the form of reminders such as: “If I see the application of a candidate from a BAME background then, if I am white, I should be careful to scrutinise the best sections of the application once again before I make my final decision.” It sounds clunky and unnatural, but it can work, blocking the effects of parts of the brain that want to jump to an immediate conclusion.

Recent task force recommendations have spelt out other ways of combating implicit bias – including committing to a culture shift, introducing bias literacy, encouraging mentoring and empowering individuals to recognise and overcome their own implicit biases.

But the implicit association test itself is not without its critics. A new study argues that we should focus not on the test, but on the actual psychological mechanisms that can lead to implicit bias in actual discriminatory behaviour. For example, with multiple sources of information, there may be biased weighting of certain information over others, such as emphasis on experience versus education in assessing job applications, where this weighting may vary depending on the race of the candidate. We must also tackle biased interpretation – such as the perception of an object as a weapon when in the hands of a member of a particular racial group.

My colleagues and I have also argued that the implicit association test is not even genuinely implicit, because it hinges on explicit categorisation by race. Participants have to explicitly assign the facial images they see into the categories “black” or “white”, “bad or good” etc.

For this reason, we have just developed a new race implicit association test probing multiple attributes at once. Participants are asked to categorise images of black and white male and female individuals on the basis of either race (as before) or gender (also associating it with good or bad). This means that we can look at people’s racial biases when they believe they are sorting faces by gender. Again, reaction times are used to measure the associative connections.

We have found that there is still a race bias even in these tests, but the effect is reduced in size. This new test may have important diagnostic potential for the future.

We need a revolution in action – not just in rhetoric. New critical thinking about implicit processes could be powerful tools for identifying the hidden barriers to equality of opportunity. Maybe even the quiet harbinger of the real revolution is still to come.

North Korea Seems Hellbent on Starting a Crisis. That's Bad News for Moon Jae-in. Unfortunately for Seoul, it appears Kim Jong-un is setting a course that will end in the rollback the very Panmunjom and Pyongyang declarations that Moon Jae-in banked his entire presidency on. by Daniel R. DePetris

The Kim regime is no longer playing nice with South Korea. In fact, North Korean officials aren’t even pretending anymore to be interested in furthering a dialogue.

Analysts and reporters covering the reclusive dynasty are naturally trained to read between the lines of a North Korean policy statement or a comment published by the state flagship Korean Central News Agency. This is for good reason; the prickly North can be very caustic with their remarks. It’s tempting for those monitoring the North to get swept away with all of the slime and venom pumped out by the North Korean propaganda machine on a daily basis and chalk all of it up to a kind of disturbing lunacy. The Kim regime, however, isn’t crazy—nor is the man at the top of the system. If anything, Kim Jong-un—with his funny haircut and penchant to eliminate all sources of discontent or prospective competition—is brutally rational.

North Korea’s statements as of late have taken on a different tone. Gone are the days when Pyongyang would trash Seoul and Washington for being irreconcilable while at the same time leaving a small window open for more discussions in the future. It’s all fire and brimstone now. Kim Yo-jong is comparing North Korean defectors in the South to “mongrel dogs” and ordering the North Korean high command to prepare for additional retaliation against Seoul. 2020 is quickly turning out to be the exact opposite of 2018, the year when South Korean President Moon Jae-in, U.S. President Donald Trump, and Kim smiled at each other like long-lost friends.

The downward spiral was a long time coming. If 2018 was the year of the blossoming flower, 2019 was the year when the flower started losing some of its petals. The entire diplomatic process Trump gambled on at considerable risk to his political and personal capital (his former national security advisers opposed his first summit with Kim) largely lost momentum immediately after the 2019 summit in Hanoi, when Kim and Trump both walked away disappointed and empty-handed. Working-level talks have been…well…hardly working at all. The last time U.S. and North Korean officials met face-to-face was October 2019, when the two sides couldn’t even agree on how the interaction went. The entire episode smells like one, big, missed opportunity by two countries—the United States and North Korea—who are too closed-minded in their positions and too unshakeable in their ways.

The biggest loser in all of this is President Moon, a former peace activist, presidential adviser, and long-time believer in the virtues of inter-Korean rapprochement whose own peace initiative with the North may have already reached the point of death. One can easily envision an uncensured Moon expressing his frustration at the lack of progress in inter-Korean relations over the previous year—due to in part to his own idealism, Kim’s stubbornness, and Washington’s inability to separate the peace track with the denuclearization track. We could be days away from watching the joint inter-Korean liaison office demolished by the North, an act that would be perfect symbolism to the end of whatever Moon hoped to accomplish on the peace front during his tenure.

In 2018, Moon was delivering grand speeches about the Korean Peninsula undergoing a historic transformation. Now, he and his advisers are begging the North Koreans to come to their senses and not to escalate the situation.

Unfortunately for Seoul, it appears Kim Jong-un is setting a course that will end in the rollback the very Panmunjom and Pyongyang declarations that Moon Jae-in banked his entire presidency on. 

Meet the U.S. Navy's New High-Tech Bomb A millimeter-wave radar gives this weapon an ability to navigate through adverse weather, conditions in which other guidance systems might encounter problems reaching or pinpointing targets. by Kris Osborn

The U.S. Navy has launched a new high-tech, long-range, all-weather bomb for the first time from an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, marking a new era of attack possibilities for carrier-launched fighters in terms of precision, range and an ability to destroy moving targets from the air.  

A key part of the weapon, called Stormbreaker, is “tri-mode” seeker technology—a guidance system that can direct the weapon using a millimeter-wave radar, uncooled imaging infrared guidance and semi-active laser technology. The weapon can track and destroy targets from as far away as forty miles.  

Raytheon weapons developers say the tri-mode seeker provides a range of guidance and targeting options typically not used together in one system. Millimeter-wave radar gives the weapon an ability to navigate through adverse weather, conditions in which other guidance systems might encounter problems reaching or pinpointing targets. Imagining infrared guidance allows the weapon to track and hone in on heat signatures such as the temperature of an enemy vehicle. With semi-active laser technology, the weapon can be guided to an exact point using a laser designator or laser illuminator coming from the air or the ground. One Raytheon developer told Warrior in an interview in 2018, during an earlier phase of the weapon’s development,  that “the millimeter wave radar turns on first. Then the data link gives it a cue and tells the seeker where to open up and look. Then, the weapon can turn on its IR (infrared) which uses heat seeking technology.”

“Stormbreaker is the only weapon that enables pilots to hit moving targets in bad weather or if dust and smoke are in the area. Super Hornet pilots will be able to use poor visibility to their advantage when Stormbreaker integration is complete,” Stormbreaker Program Director Cristy Stagg, Stormbreaker program director said in a company statement. 

StormBreaker detects, classifies, and tracks a wide array of targets, both moving and stationary. Developers have completed a series of wind tunnel tests and finished Developmental Testing and Government Confidence Testing. A Raytheon statement also added that the bomb has “demonstrated all operating modes, the capability to send, receive, and process data-link messages via both link-16 and UHF, Raytheon developers said. “StormBreaker™ uses Universal Armament Interface protocol to make the weapon/aircraft interface compatible with a wide range of aircraft, including F-35.”

GPS- and laser-guided weapons such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions have been around for decades, however, they have primarily been designed for use against fixed or stationary targets. While the Air Force currently uses a laser-guided bomb called the GBU-54 able to destroy moving targets, the new Stormbreaker will be able to do this at longer ranges and in all kinds of weather conditions. In addition, the bomb is built with a two-way dual-band datalink, which enables it to change targets or adjust to different target locations while in flight, Raytheon developers told Warrior Maven. Stormbreaker is engineered to weigh only 208 pounds, a lighter weight than most other air-dropped bombs so that eight of them can fit on the inside of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Raytheon officials explained. If weapons are kept in an internal weapons bay and not rested on an external weapons pod, then an aircraft can succeed in retaining its stealth properties because the shapes or contours of the weapons will not be visible to enemy radar.

About 105 pounds of the Stormbreaker is an explosive warhead that encompasses a “blast-frag” capability and a “plasma-jet” technology designed to pierce enemy armor. The bomb also has the ability to classify targets, meaning it could for example be programmed to hit only tanks in a convoy as opposed to other moving vehicles. The weapon can classify tanks, boats or wheeled targets, Raytheon officials added.

StormBreaker, which is also being integrated on the F-15E, is carried on the BRU-61, a four-place miniature munitions rack that fits in the F-35’s internal weapons bays. Following the successful integration of the weapon onto an F/A-18E/F, the Stormbreaker will arm the F-35B for the Marine Corps before the F-35A and F-35C.

Revealed: Why The Air Force Is So Confident In The F-35 Stealth Fighter And why China and Russia don't stand a chance. by Kris Osborn

 The idea is to enable F-35 pilots to see and destroy enemies in the air, well in advance of a potential dogfight scenario. This can be explained in terms of a well-known Air Force strategic concept pioneered years ago by air theorist and pilot Col. John Boyd, referred to as the "OODA Loop," --- for observe, orient, decide and act. The concept is to complete this process quickly and make fast decisions while in an air-to-air dogfight -- in order to get inside the enemy's decision cycle, properly anticipate, and destroy an enemy before they can destroy you.

An F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be able to use its sensors, weapons and computer technology to destroy Russian and Chinese 5th-Generation Stealth fighters in a high-end combat fight, service officials said.

“There is nothing that I have seen from maneuvering an F-35 in a tactical environment that leads me to assume that there is any other airplane I would rather be in. I feel completely comfortable and confident in taking that airplane into any combat environment,” Lt. Col. Matt Hayden, 56th Fighter Wing, Chief of Safety, Luke AFB, Arizona, told Scout Warrior in a special pilot interview.

Furthermore, several F-35 pilots have been clear in their resolve that the multi-role fighter is able to outperform any other platform in existence.

Hayden was clear to point out he has not, as of yet, flown simulated combat missions against the emerging Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA 5th-Generation stealth fighter now in development or the Chinese Shenyang J-31 5th Generation Stealth aircraft. While he said he did not personally know all of the technologies and capabilities of these Russian and Chinese aircraft, he was unambiguous in his assertion regarding confidence in the F-35. 

Available information says the Russians have built at least 6 prototype T-50 PAK FAs for their Air Force and Navy; the Chinese conducted a maiden test flight of its J-31 in 2012. In addition, China is in pre-production with its J-20 5th-Generation stealth fighter. This fighter, called the Chengdu J-20, made its first flight in 2011, and is expected to be operational by 2018, according to publicly available information and various news reports.

While Hayden did not elaborate on aspects of the J-20, he did say he would be confident flying the F-35 against any aircraft in the world.

“All those other countries (Russia and China) are trying to develop airplanes that are technologically capable as well -- from an F-35 perspective. We are no less capable than any airplane and any fighters out there,” Hayden described.  

In addition to leveraging the best available technologies on a fighter jet, winning a dog-fight or combat engagement would depend just as much on the air-tactics and decisions made by a pilot, Hayden explained.

“I have not flown against some of those aircraft. When you fight against an airplane, it depends upon the airspeed. If I maximize the effectiveness of an F-35, I can exploit the weaknesses of any other aircraft,” he said.

Many analysts have made the assessment that the J-20 does appear to be closely modelled after the F-35.

In fact, a Defense Science Board report, cited in a 2014 Congressional assessment of the Chinese military, (US-China Economic Security and Review Commission) makes reference to specific developmental information and specs of numerous U.S. weapons systems believed to be stolen by Chinese computer hackers; design specs and technologies for the F-35 were among those compromised by Chinese cyber-theft, according to the report.

An AIN Online report from the Singapore Air Show in February of last year catalogues a number of J-20 features and technologies – including those believed to be quite similar to the F-35.

Chinese 5th-Generation

From the Report:  Original AIN Online Report HERE

“The J-20 is a large multi-role fighter with stealthy features similar to those found in the American F-22 and F-35. Although very little is known about its intended purpose, the aircraft appears to offer capability in a number of roles, including long-range interception and precision attack.

In terms of weapon carriage the J-20 has a similar arrangement to that of the Lockheed Martin F-22, comprising two lateral bays for small air-to-air missiles such as the agile, imaging-infrared PL-10, and a large under-fuselage bay for accommodating larger missiles and precision-guided surface attack weapons. The 607 Institute’s new PL-15 active-radar missile is thought to be the primary long-range air-to-air weapon, reportedly having been test-fired from a Shenyang J-16 platform last year. The PL-21, a ramjet-powered weapon in the same class as the MBDA Meteor, is another possibility for the J-20.

The sensor suite includes an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) and a large-array AESA radar, which was developed by the 14th Institute at Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology (NRIET, 14th Institute), and is possibly designated Type 1475/KLJ-5. Diamond-shaped windows around the fuselage suggest that a distributed aperture infrared vision system is installed.

In the cockpit, the J-20 sports three large color displays, plus other small screens, and a holographic wide-angle head-up display. An advanced datalink has been developed, and a retractable refueling probe is located on the starboard side of the forward fuselage. Much of the avionics suite has been tested by the CFTE (China flight test establishment) aboard a modified Tupolev Tu-204C, in much the same way as the systems of the F-22 were tested in a Boeing 757.”

Regarding the Russian T-50 PAK FA Stealth fighter, numerous reports suggest the aircraft has numerous technological problems and is a 5th generation plane “in name only.”

Russian 5th-Generation 

The Following is a report on the T-50 PAK FA from Business Insider, also from this year’s Singapore Air Show….Business Insider Report HERE

“Reporting from the Singapore Airshow 2016, IHS Jane's reports that "Russian industry has consistently referred to the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA as a fifth-generation aircraft, but a careful look at the program reveals that this is an 'in name only' designation."

This is largely because of a lack of evolutionary technology aboard the plane compared with previous jets that Russia and the US have designed. Indeed, the PAK FA's engines are the same as those aboard Russia's 4++ generation (a bridging generation between fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft) Su-35. Additionally, the PAK FA and the Su-35 share many of the same onboard systems.

And even when the PAK FA's systems are different from the Su-35's, the plane's specifications are still not up to true fifth-generation standards.

RealClearDefense, citing Indian media reports that are familiar with a PAK FA variant being constructed in India, notes that the plane has multiple technological problems. Among these problems are the plane's "engine performance, the reliability of its AESA radar, and poor stealth engineering."

F-35 Sensor Fusion: 

Despite various reports about technologies being engineered into the Russian and Chinese 5th-Generation Stealth Fighters, it is in no way clear that either aircraft is in any way comparable to the F-35. Most publicly available information seems to indicate that the F-35 is superior - however, to some extent, the issue remains an open question. More information is likely to emerge once the Russian and Chinese aircraft are operational and deployed. 

For example, the Chinese J-20 is cited as having an Electro-Optical targeting system, stealth configuration, datalink, AESA radar and precision weaponry quite similar to the F-35, according to the AIN report. 

The computer algorithms woven into the F-35 architecture are designed to leverage early iterations of what could be described as early phases of “artificial intelligence.” Broadly speaking, artificial intelligence refers to fast-evolving computer technology and processors able to gather, assess and integrate information more autonomously in order to help humans make decisions more quickly and efficiently from a position of command-and-control.

“If there is some kind of threat that I need to respond to with the airplane, I don’t have to go look at multiple sensors and multiple displays from multiple locations which could take my time and attention away from something else,” Hayden added.

The F-35 software, which shows images on display screens in the cockpit as well as on a pilot's helmet-mounted-display, is able to merge results from various radar capabilities onto a single screen for the pilot.

“The F-35 takes from multiple sensors around the airplane and combines them together in a way that is much more manageable and accessible -- while not detracting from the other tasks that the pilot is trying to accomplish,” Hayden said.

For instance, the F-35's Electro-Optical Target System, or EOTS, is an infrared sensor able to assist pilots with air and ground targeting at increased standoff ranges while also performing laser designation, laser range-finding and other tasks.

In addition, the plane's Distributed Aperture System, or DAS, is a series of six electro-optical sensors also able to give information to the pilot. The DAS includes precision tracking, fire control capabilities and the ability to warn the pilot of an approaching threat or missile.

The F-35 is also engineered with an Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar, which is able to track a host of electromagnetic signals, including returns from Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR. This paints a picture of the contours of the ground or surrounding terrain and, along with Ground Moving Target Indicator, or GMTI, locates something on the move on the ground and airborne objects or threats.

Hayden added that the F-35 has been training against other F-35s in simulated combat situations, testing basic fighter maneuvers. Having himself flown other fighter aircraft, he explained that many other F-35 pilots also fly the airplane after having experience flying an F-16, A-10 or other combat aircraft.

“The F-35’s low-observable technology can prevent detection. That is a strength that other airplanes do not have,” he said.

F-35 and F-22:

At the same time, senior Air Force leaders have made the point that F-35 technological superiority is intended to be paired with the pure air-to-air dogfighting ability of the service’s F-22 – a stealth aircraft, with its speed, maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio, is believed by many to be the most capable air-to-air platform in the world.

“Every airplane has flaws. When you design an airplane, you design an airplane with tradeoffs - give something else up. If I was flying against an adversary in actual combat, my job would be to exploit the enemy weakness and play to my strength. I can compensate for certain things,” Hayden explained. “There is a certain way to fly and fight in an airplane, using airspeed to maximize the turning performance of the airplane.” 

During a public speech in 2015, the Air Forces Air Combat Commander, Gen. Hawk Carlisle, said the F-22 is engineered such that it can complement the F-35.

“You will use the F-35 for air superiority, but you will need the raptors to do some things in a high-end fight to penetrate denied airspace,” he said. “The airplane is designed for multi-role capability, electronic warfare and sensors. The F-35 will win against any fourth-generation airplane -- in a close-in fight, it will do exceedingly well. There will be a combination of F-22s and F-35s in the future.”

Hayden further elaborated upon these claims, arguing that the F-35 has another set of strategic advantages to include an ability to use internally built sensors. This prevents the need to use external pods on a fighter jet which can add drag, slowing down and restricting maneuverability for an aircraft.

“As an F-35 pilot, I can carry bombs to a target area where I can now take out air-to-ground threats. You have to look at the overall picture of the airplane. The airplane was designed to overwhelm the battlespace in a non-permissive threatening environment where 4th-gen fighters are not going to persist,” he added.

The F-35 is engineered with a 25-mm gun and has the ability to carry and fire a wide range of weapons. The aircraft has already demonstrated an ability to fire an AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), JDADM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) or GBU 12 (laser-guided aerial bomb), and AIM 9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile.

So-called "Block 3F" software for the F-35 increases the weapons delivery capacity of the JSF as well, giving it the ability to drop a Small Diameter Bomb and 500-pound JDAM.

As a multi-role fighter, the F-35 is also engineered to function as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform designed to apprehend and process video, data and information from long distances. Some F-35 developers have gone so far as to say the F-35 has ISR technologies comparable to many drones in service today that are able to beam a “soda straw” video view of tactically relevant combat locations in real time.

Finally, regarding dogfighting, it is pertinent to point out a “War is Boring” report from 2015 which cited an F-35 fighter pilot explaining how an F-16 was able to win a “mock dogfight” against an F-35; the F-35 Joint Program Office disputed this claim, saying the F-35 used in the scenario was in no way representative of today’s operational F-35s. The software, weapons and sensor technologies used in the mock dogfight were not comparable to the most evolved F-35.

Furthermore, F-35 proponents maintained that the aircraft’s advanced computer technology and sensors would enable it to see and destroy enemy fighters from much longer ranges – essentially destroying enemy fighters before they are seen.  

OODA Loop

The idea is to enable F-35 pilots to see and destroy enemies in the air, well in advance of a potential dogfight scenario. This can be explained in terms of a well-known Air Force strategic concept pioneered years ago by air theorist and pilot Col. John Boyd, referred to as the "OODA Loop," --- for observe, orient, decide and act. The concept is to complete this process quickly and make fast decisions while in an air-to-air dogfight -- in order to get inside the enemy's decision cycle, properly anticipate, and destroy an enemy before they can destroy you.

The F-35 is designed with long-range sensors and data fusion technologies such that, as a fifth-generation aircraft, it can complete the OODA Loop much more quickly than potential adversaries, F-35 advocates claim.

Mission Data Files

Described as the brains of the airplane, the mission data files are extensive on-board data systems compiling information on geography, air space and potential threats in known areas of the world where the F-35 might be expected to perform combat operations, Air Force officials explained.

Consisting of hardware and software, the mission data files are essentially a database of known threats and friendly aircraft in specific parts of the world. The files are being worked on at a reprogramming laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., Air Force officials told Military.com last year. The mission data files are designed to work with the aircraft's Radar Warning Receiver engineered to find and identify approaching enemy threats and hostile fire. 

The mission data packages are loaded with a wide range of information to include commercial airliner information and specifics on Russian and Chinese fighter jets. For example, the mission data system would enable a pilot to quickly identify a Russian MiG-29 if it were detected by the F-35’s sensors.

The mission data files are being engineered to adjust to new threat and intelligence information as it emerges. For instance, the system is engineered to one day have all the details on a Chinese J-20 stealth fighter or Russian T-50 PAK FA stealth aircraft.

As a high-visibility, expensive acquisition program, the F-35 has many vocal detractors and advocates; the aircraft has, to be sure, had its share of developmental problems over the years. some of these problems include complications with its main computer system, called ALIS, and a now-corrected engine fire aboard the aircraft. Overall, most critics have pointed to the program's growing costs, something program officials claim has vastly improved through various money-saving initiatives and bulk-buys.