F-35 to do the job of the A-10?

[Zentrandude]

guess you can ask david or an aircraft designer if the f-35 has a very limited afterburner that would make it slower than a f-16 using afterburner. the f-35 should be less manuerverable those f-16 can turn on a dime.

[David Hingtgen]

It's often said that a key decision (especially on the part of "pilot imput) on YF-22 vs YF-23 was that stealth isn't really all that great. A lot of people did not like even a slight trade-off of agility for more stealth. They basically felt the YF-23 depended too much on stealth, despite still equalling the F-16 in agility. They wanted the F-22 because it had that extra little bit of agility.

So what does that say for the F-35? Less stealthy than the -23 and the -22, *and* less agile than the 16/22/23? (F-35 is close to the 16's agility according to Lockheed, but certainly doesn't equal or surpass---otherwise they'd point out it being superior every five seconds--but it's not, so they say it's COMPARABLE)

Also--stealth isn't just radar. It's IR as well. And a single big-a$$ exhaust like the 35 has can't have all that low of an IR signature, no matter how many serrated edges you put on it. If the -23 had a lower RCS, it had a LOT lower IR signature. And the -22's flattened vectoring nozzles sure look superior to the -35's.

F-35's are slow as hell. Mach 1.5 max, or thereabouts. I don't think they can supercruise, need afterburner. (At least it did on the NOVA show). The original, very first 1986 concepts was for a supersonic Harrier replacement. Not a stealth, supercruising mini-F22.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Imode,

Its in the books and the specs show it cant out turn, out gun, our outspeed the F-16. If it could I would be all over it and PRo JSF. Its meant to be 70% attacker not essentially "bilingual " in air and tactical strike roles./ Also David, no the JSF can't supercruise. ONe of the books I read(which I presume you probably read as well) specifically states that it cannot supercruise. IT was brought up in a chapter of how it would compare to the F-16.

How did it make it past the drawing board? The same way the super hornet passed. Politics, PRESUMABLY cheaper, and above all COMMONALITY. The concept which should have died once Macnamara left the DOD.

[mikeszekely]

As far as what would cause the EU to go to war with us, I think it's simple:Pride.

I know sounds stupid

I hate to be harsh, but you should stop there while you're ahead.

Why should he? Oh, I'm not saying that armed open conflict between the US and the EU is in the cards, but look at the politics of the last decade. France and Germany are the two dominant powers in the EU (Britain could be, but they're more interested in being Britain than in being the EU). They are, as most countries are, deeply resentful of the power that the US wields as the world's only remaining super-power (China is a LONG way off from being a super-power, as there's more to being a super-power than GDP growth). Germany and France, despite their traditional animousity towards each other, have been using the EU as a forum to act out as a world power, and as such they've opposed and criticized (both rightly and wrongly) the US at every turn. Nominally we may be allies, but we're definately rivals in their eyes

[mikeszekely]

The thing is, both sides are right. <ducks>

When the excrement hits the ventilation device, and a war must be fought, lives are at stakes and nobody wants to put their lives in the hands of newfangled planes which might not work. Not to mention that these newfangled planes cost 1.5 to 2 times that of an existing airframe, which means I have half the numbers using tools that might not work!

That, I believe, is the major concern of the "proven technology" crowd.. they want to keep using F14/ F15/ A10, because, rightfully, they worked. It's proven and the troops know how to make the fullest use of these tools.

But bear in mind that because these tools are proven, the enemy also knows what to expect.. and knowing is half the battle. Counter-strategies can be thought of, new counter-weapons can be devised, etc. etc.

You absolutely need the new technologies that the F22 and F35 are bringing into the services.. they may not be needed now, and maybe not even needed in 2010 or 2020, but sooner or later you would need them.

The F22 and F35 are mere precursors to a new generation of fighters using new technologies and new tactics. Yes, you can probably retrofit some of these technologies onto existing airframes (F15 ACTIVE, Super Tomcats, F16XL all are fairly good examples) but at some point in time, a completely new airframe is needed to test the sum of all the disparate technologies. And, IMO, that's really what the F22 and F35 is doing.

Well spoken.

[Uxi]

Has the F-16 ever been in an actual documented dogfight? Or even F-15's? I'm aware of the few publically known conflicts the F-14 has had (mostly Libya). which isn't a whole lot itself...

I'm mixed myself... Why does a harrier-replacement even need to be supersonic? Don't need supersonic or supercruise for a CAS fighter. I know from my M1A1 I'd prefer to have a Harrier or A-10 or even Cobra's/Apaches up there to keep helo's off... than something that blazes through faster than sound (and is somehow gonna visually distinguish my tank from a T-72)... Leave the fixed-wing stuff for the air superiority fighters like the F-15/F-22... that's their sole purpose of existence...

As long as the F-35 is capable of mounting a gun (and it appears it is), then I think it should be a good multi-role plane. Sounds like it will replace the Harrier and F-18 well enough... though I'm not sure about the F-16, since I dont' know the roll it fills in the USAF... CAS for the Army?

[Uxi]

Yeah, as WWII and now the Cold War fades into memory, France and Germany are definately shaping up to be future foes rather than the allies they had been against the Soviets. I see the Brits staying neutral if not at least slightly sympathetic to the US... Course which way Russia and China goes would determine exactly how the EU orients towards the US...

In either case, the US would bury the EU in a war IMO. Even unified, Europe can't match the economic output of the US. If the US industry was in war mode (i'm talking rationing and confiscation of metals, etc), we could well see Super Tomcats and F-23's and such being churned out. Output would be enormous and everything from the UK to Italy and Greece (with everything in between) would have to be a part of that to match it. The F-22/F-35 combo would be sufficient to hold the line with the rest of the Cold War legacy fighters under the future force was fielded...

I don't see it going to that WWIII-scale level of conflict, even assuming the worse, though.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

the onyl reason I feel the JSF should be supersonic is since its a replacement for the F-18/16...those planes need supersonic replacements that can outdo them. HOwever the JSF also happens to be the harrier replacement.

F-15 and F-16 dogfights happened primarily in teh Bekaa valley of lebanon. The IAF shattered enemy air forces with almost not losses to the falcon and eagles...the main reason the eagles kill ratio overall is so damn high is because of that conflict alone. The israelis have the most kills with both of the planes. F-15s from the US airf force scored most of the kills in the gulf war.

The F-14 was involved in shooting down 4 libayn fighters in the 80s. out of the 3 planes jjust mentioned...the F-15s got the most kills overall.

Even involved in the first company on company shoootdown when a saudi air force eagle shot down 2 iranian phantoms.

[ewilen]

Lynx7725's piece is well-written but I'm afraid he has missed one of the main arguments of the critics of the F-22 and/or JSF. (Also, variously, the F-18E/F.) The critics aren't particularly concerned that the technology is risky or unproven--although many of them are worried about the management of the programs, which has resulted in delays, cost overruns, and (potentially) performance inferior to what was specified.

Again, they are not worried that these aircraft are too cutting-edge. They're worried that they aren't radical enough. The F-22 and JSF (so the argument goes) represent at most incremental improvements on the F-15 and F-16--but they are extremely expensive, to the point that they threaten to crowd out elements of the military budget necessary for readiness and for maintaining a fighter force large enough to fully meet our commitments around the globe, while developing weapons that will give American forces a decisive advantage over potential dangers 10-20 years or more away. This is what many think the President was talking about (or should have been talking about) when he spoke during the 2000 election campaign of "skipping a generation" of weapons systems.

As for what those potential dangers may be--I think we can agree that they aren't imminent; they are at least decades away. Therefore, we shouldn't be spending billions on airplanes that won't be needed for many years--and by the time they are, they may well be eclipsed by new technologies.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

See if the JSF could outfly, outmmanuever, outgun, and outspeed the F-16, stealth or not, I would support the damned thing. That is my stance on it. Again planes that replace older planes should ECLIPSE the capability of the plane it is replacing. Stealth does not guarantee a invincibility against missles. Stealth also is nothing in a knife fight since the stealth plane by the time its close in for a dogfight is detectable on radar. Radar only means a smaller cross section and full blown detection delayed. Detection may not happen till much later. Why did the F1117s return unscathed in the gulf war shin? Well common sense also plays a part...stealth pilots arent told to fly directly in harms way since stealth is up the wazzoo on detection prevention, no they still avoid threat areas to preserve the full capability of stealth attack...which is to take the enemy by surprise.

The JSF in my eyes has a lot to live up to if its a dedicated replace ment for the marines hornets and the air forces falcons. Those are true multirole fighters who only lack stealth...other wise they are superior to the JSF except in avionics.(althoguh I could be wrong on that part).

Remember this plane is also a victim of false advertsising...Lockheed wants us to THINK this thing is a true multirole but its more of a jsut in cse protection thing......its proven that its 70% attacker.

However if proviosions for sidewinder and asraam as well as guns are kept..then maybe I will have more faith in this plane as evidenced in the previous pages.

[Noyhauser]

I’ve been lurking on this thread awhile, and I think there is a bit of myopia on people’s parts. I study defence management, which talks about procurement processes and defence organization and the JSF is an interesting procurement process.

#1 The US cannot cancel the JSF… ever. Because of the level of offshore involvement in the aircraft, canning the project would be hugely expensive (legal issues pertaining to offshore partner contracts), and would blow the bottom out of the US arms market. As we have discussed on here, the JSF isn’t that needed in the US, maybe the Marine Corps has the best argument in support of it. It is however absolutely vital for the UK, Spanish and Italian navies as their follow-on primary naval aircraft to the Harrier, not to mention other countries such as the Netherlands, Canada and Norway which see it as their next generation fighter.

The next generation of UK carrier is built around the specifications of the JSF… and if it gets canned, the UK will have a carrier without a fighter to pilot it. I think you can imagine the political fallout from that. No other defence project in American history has had such a major international involvement at this phase. For the most part, capital equipment has been presented to foreign nations fait accompi, such as the F-16, F/A-18 ect (we have this fighter the F-16, do you want to buy one, vs. do you want to be involved in the project to build the JSF?). Over 25% of the development costs are paid for by international partners (the Three level partnership program).

This is unlike the Comanche (which was canned last week) because that project was paid for by the US alone, so they bear the economic cost in full. If the JSF gets cancelled, the US will be on the hook not only for the development costs but for huge cancellation feels written into these partnership contracts. I don’t know the exact figures off hand (even if they were published, which I doubt, but an excellent contemporary example was the 1994 Canadian government decision to cancel the $4.8 billion dollar contract to purchase the EH-101, afterwards they were on the hook for $500 Million in cancellation fees. You can just imagine the costs incurred for the JSF.

Moreover the credibility hole the US arms manufacturers will have if the JSF is cancelled will be huge. The most of Europe will probably never trust the US again with a major procurement project when they could ask the EU’s OCCAR to manage a common project and have EADS, a European company to do the work for them. Having OCCAR do the work for them has far more advantages because they retain more control over the development process… rather than have little input if the US cancels. Actually this is the reason why the French build all their own carriers, fighters, Tanks ect… they don’t want to be caught if the US or some other country pulls the plug on them.

If the A-400M contract is successful, EADS could become a monster in the world’s arms trade, because it can legitimately say that its equipment is designed for how the world operates, rather than US equipment which is designed for the US arms market. (compare the C-17 to the A-400M… you’ll see what mean….)

#2 There has been one successful single service fighter in American history that has served as the ideal for fighter procurement for US market… the F-4 Phantom. Although it was originally a Navy project, the F-4 was used by all three flying services (Marines, Airforce and Navy) and worked quite well. I’m not saying the JSF comes close to being in the same ilk as the F-4 was at its time (There was not a single plane the could touch the F-4 in western Inventories ) but many projects have attempted to follow in its footsteps. F/A-18 came close, had the Airforce accepted it as the F-17 rather than the F-16, then it was likely that it would have been chosen as the next generation Carrier fighter as well (which is was). The F-16 came close to this ideal as well, (from what I vaguely know about it ) but it was disqualified because of the Naval Aviation Penchant for dual engined fighters.

That’s been the problem with the whole idea of single service equipment, nobody can decide on a rigid specification sheet for a proposal, and therefore any design has to bridge a lot of capabilities that often are equivocal. Welcome to the world of the JSF. I think the JSF is particularly hampered by one of these requirements… the STOVL (short take-off Vertical Landing) requirement which in my mind disqualifies it as a single service fighter.

#3 Gunpods in the JSF (and other thoughts)

I’m almost certain that the JSF doesn’t have an internal gunpod because of its STOVL quirement. If you need to take off from a very short runway, payload optimization is key. Having several thousand pounds of dead weight you “might” use (ie gunpod), than two extra bombs that you most definitely WILL use is a powerful argument against having an internal gunpod. Had it of been a normal fighter, this would not be a problem, however the weight factor that must be considered in the F-35 STOVL design makes every pound count. I think this is the very reason why the JSF program in the end has had serious problems living up to its expectations of being an advance from the previous fighter designs is the requirement of STOVL.

It is just ludicrous for the Airforce who has no need for such a capability, yet has had it forced on it as a replacement. STOVL puts extremely tight tolerances on a fighter that are not easy to get around. First you need an engine that gives a pretty impressive power to weigh ratio (like the Rolls Royce Pegasus) and has some way of creating equal downward force both at the front of the plane and at the rear so that it can hover. That means you need a lot of power (lack of fuel economy) and a engine design that must accomplish both level and horizontal flight. Somehow I don’t see the JSF becoming the next Airforce F-16 when it barely beats out the F-16, and when you can get upgraded F-16 for the fraction of the cost and get a better fighter. I think the Navy will probably adopt it as a supplement to the F/A-18, and it will become the Marine Corps mainline fighter for no other reason than it can be used from the decks of Iwo Jima Class (with the inclusion of a Ski Jump… easily retrofitted), or forward air bases.

#4 Bombs

The US is in development next generation JDAM called the small diameter bomb to replace the current retrofit kits it uses today. This would allow the JSF to carry more bombs and employ them more effectively than the current generation of Fighters. I don't know the program specifics but apparently it is pretty advanced so far.

#5 I think some of you need to take a course in international relations. The idea that the US and EU would ever get into a war is just ridiculous. The EU has been based on liberal democratic values, it was born precisely to prevent war, not just between themselves but others. Read this essay: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...,680096,00.html

or the first section of this one

http://www.iss-eu.org/chaillot/chai55e.pdf

These two articles talk about the future role of European militaries and european Security thought. If you are interested I can send you essays anyd my article about it (its my #1 area of study, in front of defence management. )

Even more ludicrous is the idea that France and Germany will ever even come to blows ever in the even remotest future imaginable. Ties have never been closer between the two states, and with the direction of the EU (especially in light of last weeks tri-power summit in Berlin) relations can only get closer.

Edited March 1, 2004 by Noyhauser

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

my god dude that was real detailed and right spot on man. Bravo. I never thought ofg the F-4 scenario. And what a successful plane it STILL is!@(not sure if the F-4 Kurnass is still used b the IAF but if it is someone pleae clarify)

[ewilen]

Yes, that was a good post. I especially appreciate (as I hadn't before) the importance of the international constituency for the JSF. Unfortunately for F-22 fans, this makes the Raptor a likelier target for budget-cutting. (The Super Hornet might also be a candidate but it appears to be further along. I think there's also some hope of exporting it, thus lowering overall costs. I doubt the F-22 has any prospects whatsoever in that area.)

Some comments/quibbles:

1) Since the Air Force will mostly be purchasing F-35A's (non-STOVL), will that not likely enable them to put the weight savings into an internal gun? Indeed, running "F35A gun" through google seems to confirm this.

2) Comparison to the F-4 doesn't strike me as especially apt. As noted, the F-4 was designed exclusively for the Navy. (IIRC, McDonnell thought up the airplane themselves and then offered it--quite different from how the JSF and ATF were developed.) The F-4 was taken into the Air Force basically because whatever compromises might have gone into making a carrier-based design were blown away by a rather large leap in performance relative to other US military aircraft.

Also, while the F-4 could bomb, it often served alongside specialized attack aircraft, especially in the Navy. The JSF is being called upon to fill more roles in more services than any other aircraft. Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with compromises in air to air capability if they yield better penetration/strike ability.

[David Hingtgen]

The F-4 was so much better than any other fighter, F-4C's for the USAF still had folding wings and tailhooks. Refuelling receptacle was about the only change, USAF wanted F-4's *now*. Then they realized they needed the gun, and we started making a lot of new F-4 variants. (Ever seen the Swing-wing or Super Phantom proposals? Neat.)

F-35A w/gun: yes, but you've got a "gap" in your air-to-air weapons. After firing max-range AMRAAMs, you're supposed to close in to gun range? And not get toasted by Sidewinders etc while doing so?

I believe the small-diameter bomb goes to the F-15E first. Basic idea is to have a "bunker buster" without the massive explosion and size. Sure, multi-thousand pound bombs can take out a concrete structure, but also the entire city block. They want the penetration, but with a very small explosive and carrying more than 2 or 4 per plane. After that, they'll go for all the internal-carriage planes.

[Graham]

Has the F-16 ever been in an actual documented dogfight? Or even F-15's? I'm aware of the few publically known conflicts the F-14 has had (mostly Libya). which isn't a whole lot itself...

According to one of my F-15 books, the F-15 has something like 90 documented air-to-air kills so far with zero losses IIRC.

Of course this includes Saudi and Iraeli F-15s, not only US ones.

No idea how many kills the F-16 has racked up so far, but I presume the IAF must has some.

Graham

[rdenham]

It's not how many kills you have that is important but rather the way you achieve your victories. Although USAF F-16's & F-15's won a few of their kills in ACM engagements, many of the Air Forces victories in the Gulf War were against Migs running for the Iranian border.

A kill is still a kill but a guy running for his life is meat on the table for just about anyone.

[Akilae]

2) Comparison to the F-4 doesn't strike me as especially apt. As noted, the F-4 was designed exclusively for the Navy. (IIRC, McDonnell thought up the airplane themselves and then offered it--quite different from how the JSF and ATF were developed.)

I was just reading "Skunk Works", very interesting read... the co-author, Ben E. Rich, used to direct Lockheed's Skunk Works, and points out that almost all of Skunk Works' most famous spyplane designs (U-2 and SR-71) were all thought up and designed within Skunk Works, then taken to the military. He laments that recent approaches to aircraft design (military -> designer, rather than designer -> military), have a rather negative effect in terms of cost and design effectiveness.

[hellohikaru]

I doubt they would really deploy the F-35 without any external weapons. No need to do so against current adversarys.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Most of the F-15 and F-16 kills were scored in BEkaa valley in lebanon circa '82. Most of these kills were documented as dogfights. The IAF is known for its dogfighting skills and in mock dogfight with one of the navy's airfleets on station near the mideast...annhialted the navy fleet 300+/92.

this is not to say that the navy pilots suck but shows that the IAF is a air force to be reckoned with cautiously. They are skilled and operate the best that the air force can offer(although witha lot of sensitive avionics not given)

David I do remember the F-4 proposals. They looked neat. IS the IF kurnass still operational? That plane is awesome and to my knowledge the IAF, tgreece, and luftwaffe are the only nations still operating phantoms...the IAFs being the last i heard of to use them as a full streangth operational fighter not limited to reserves. I know they were being replaced by the F-15I but I am not sure if full replacement has occured yet. BTW the canard phantom.....wouild that have been able to outurn the existing F-4E significantly? Also I alw=so read that the Phantom 2000 or kurnass from the israelies was able to out perform the F-18A. is this true?

[David Hingtgen]

F-4 never did have enough downforce at the tail, even with the slotted stabs. Upforce up front couldn't have hurt. It never suffered in roll, using ailerons and spoilers simultaneously. However--F-4 doesn't have much thrust, drag is a very big concern with it. Adding stuff adds drag. Newer planes don't care much, they have so much thrust add-ons don't mean much. But it does with the F-4.

As for the Kurnass Phantom--adding a strake isn't going to do much. More likely add in 1 degree or so of alpha before loss of control. F-4: utterly totally at the mercy of angle of attack. F-4 pilots watch that gauge more than all the others. (Ironically, also helps it with carrier landings, as its quite sensitive--get the AOA right, and you're set)

[ewilen]

F-35A w/gun: yes, but you've got a "gap" in your air-to-air weapons. After firing max-range AMRAAMs, you're supposed to close in to gun range? And not get toasted by Sidewinders etc while doing so?

You know, even though a lot of people are leery of disposing of guns entirely, I don't think anyone regards a gun as a weapon of primary resort in within visual range aerial combat. I suspect it serves two purposes:

1) Weapon of opportunity/weapon of last resort: when missiles are expended or the range/angle more-or-less fortuitously allows a gun shot.

2) Controlling the engagement--i.e., if you don't have a gun, the enemy can do stuff that he wouldn't dare do if you have a gun; conversely, if you do, you limit his options.

But I expect the vast majority of air-air kills will be via missile.

Speaking of missiles, according to Aerospaceweb.org--and this may have been mentioned--the F-35 can carry Sidewinders on the outboard stations. So basically the F-35 can be armed for air superiority/interception missions, albeit at some cost to stealthiness. During daytime combat, this may not be very much of a tradeoff at all.

Finally, if carrying Sidewinders while stealthy is really seen as a requirement, lock-on-after-launch appears to be a very reasonable prospect. (Look here.) Or the ASRAAM could be adopted. Although admittedly, I don't know what a stealthy air-air mission loadout would leave the F-35 with--guns, 1xAIM-120, and 1xheat-seaking missile?

[David Hingtgen]

Anyone got the exact date of that article? NOW they're going to give the 9X lock-after-launch. Probably due to the USAF otherwise placing massive ASRAAM orders.

[ewilen]

By getting page info in my browser, I can see the page was last modified Jun 20, 2003.

More recent reference to the same info: http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/...ges/387-236.asp

Not about LOAL, but reading it nearly brought tears to my eyes: http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/lufbery.html (If you know what a QF-4 is, you'll understand.)

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

You all know I could care less about stealth really. I mean it is nice and all but I think it works bst on the lockheed skunmkworks previ9ous works including the raptor and the northorp black widow...

So if the JSF sacrifices stealth to use outboard sidewinders so be it.....but ya know since stealth is sacrificed with external stores it really makes it no better than an F-16 asides avionics. I think the F-16C b lock 60 has a greater payload.

[Stamen0083]

So if the JSF sacrifices stealth to use outboard sidewinders so be it.....but ya know since stealth is sacrificed with external stores it really makes it no better than an F-16 asides avionics.  I think the F-16C b lock 60 has a greater payload.

I gotta ask, relatively, how much stealth would be sacrificed when the outboard pylon is loaded on?

With the external stores, the only most likely points to reflect radar would be the pylons. Everywhere else would remain stealthy, would it not? The F-16 doesn't have that luxury ever, so how exactly is the F-16 having the edge?

I mean, sure, the RCS of the JSF would be greater with external stores than without, but is it so much bigger that its RCS is comparable to F-16?

Edited March 2, 2004 by Stamen0083

[Zentrandude]

the missiles would reflect the radar signals back to the radar site. im proly sure there might be a steathy missile in dev that would help them carry larger payloads.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

well the Aim 9X and the bombs are rounded suirfaces and not angled....so that pretty much kills the stealth right there when put on the outside. That is my view on it. Tahat in addition to pylons.

[Stamen0083]

well the Aim 9X and the bombs are rounded suirfaces and not angled....so that pretty much kills the stealth right there when put on the outside. That is my view on it. Tahat in addition to pylons.

Which has a larger RCS: missiles, or the F-16?

That's my point.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

a singl missle of course has a lower RCS but if you have missles spread out on a set format...like 2 on each side, 1 fuel tank under each wing, and 2 jdams under each wing...I think that would kil stealth.

[David Hingtgen]

F-117's have a radar RCS equal to a small ball bearing. Remember how a loose screw will just kill its stealthiness. (They did redesign the screw-heads though)

F-35 or F-22 with pylons--- maybe as stealthy as a B-1B, if they're lucky.

Of course, the "new" stealths are probably not as stealthy as the F-117/B-2, and have "looser" tolerances I believe.

Stamen0083---yes, an F-35 w/pylons would have an RCS like an F-16. Think of it like a nice pure white tablecloth. Then you spill spaghetti sauce on it, and stain it. It's ruined. Yes, 99% of it's fine, but that one little spot just screwed everything up. Same with adding an external store to a stealth plane.

Edited March 2, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[imode]

F-35 or F-22 with pylons--- maybe as stealthy as a B-1B, if they're lucky.

Dunno if that's a complment or not.

The whole arguement however is making all kinds of crazy turns however. If we're talking about an F-35 or F-22 fully loaded, then we're also assuming that we have achieved total air superiority and thus, who cares about stealth?

[David Hingtgen]

I'm saying they'd probably still have an RCS smaller than most fighters, but still 10 or 100 times or more their "normal" size.

[Graham]

It's true that most if not all military campaigns in the last decade have featured very little or no air-to-air combat, the emphasis being almost completely on air-to-ground missions. While this has been true in the recent past, it may not necessarily always hold true for future conflicts.

What worries me is that the US military and by extension most of the militaries of the Western world seem to be planning their aviation procurement mostly based on the assumption that future conflicts will be mostly air-to-ground and there seems to be somewhat of a neglect in the desire to improve or even just maintain present air-to-air and fleet defence capability.

Also, as I've mentioned several times, the US military seems to be placing all it's eggs in one basket with all these expensive stealth planes (F-117, B-2, F-22 & F-35). Radar defeating stealth is fine until somebody goes and develops a long range passive detection system that will render it obsolete, which will probably happen sooner rather than later.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I really don't think the F-35 is it.

Graham

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Radar defeating stealth is fine until somebody goes and develops a long range passive detection system that will render it obsolete, which will probably happen sooner rather than later.

Graham

You mean something like a 'CYCLOPS CROSS-DIMENSIONAL RADAR'?

[Mobyrz]

Found this interesting read on the web, I'm trying to find the actual aviation week article.....

Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'

IMO, this is clear evidence to me that the U.S. needs to maintain air superiority through planes such as the F-22 and to maintian the competence of the pilots through these type of exercises.