Valk's engines..important question.

[David Hingtgen]

Yup, F120's certainly would have cost more to maintain, with all the extra moving parts--basically like an internal thrust reverser in design/complexity, and thrust reversers aren't all that reliable, as systems go.

[Chronocidal]

Yipes.. never actually heard that much about those planes, and why which was chosen. The main reason always I heard was that the YF-23 would've been much more expensive to make, due to the complex shape of the airframe. But the YF-23's still my favorite stealth aircraft to date. Honestly, if it weren't so big, I'd say it'd be the perfect replacement for the F-14. With those kinds of speeds, the thing has interceptor written all over it. Dunno if it'd be as maneuverable though, and they'd probably never fit the phoenix in that bay. But it'd still be better than trying to replace it with some new adaptation of the hornet.

Oh, and on a side note, I'd probably call the YF-23 and YF-21 long lost cousins, at least in overall shape. Obviously there are large differences, but the overall shapes are VERY similar when compared. Except, the YF-21 and VF-22 need to lose the god-awful canopies... a simple bubble F-16'ish canopy would've been soooo much more attractive than the bubbly dome thing they used. I know they did it for visibility, but that dome top is ridiculous.

[David Hingtgen]

Chronocidal--both the YF-22 and YF-23 beat anything we have today, hands-down. Don't worry about them being agile enough to replace the F-14. (of course, we need a navalised version for that to happen). But no other plane can carry the Phoenix, it's just big. And certainly can't carry it internally. However, a key part of a missile's range is the speed it's launched at. Since YF-22/23 supercruise a lot, they'll almost always be able to launch AMRAAM's at high-speed, giving them a nice boost to their range. Still not a Phoenix, but still a good range with very high speed. But of course, with the YF-23 being inherently faster than the -22, it can launch them even faster.

The YF-23 is big, but is also has an incredibly low wing-loading, lower than even the YF-22's. It also has MASSIVE control surfaces, most notably the tail.

As for costing money to make---Northrop sure knows how to build exotic stealthy shapes, the YF-23 coming straight from the B-2. (That's why it's stealthier than the -22---Northrop's stealths are much stealthier than Lockheed's). The F-22, while generally conventional, still uses lots of pioneering/expensive methods to build it, like its entirely beam-welded center area. Strong, light, and expensive. F-14 did it for the wing-pivot area, as it was critical. F-22's doing it for much of the plane.

[Knight26]

I can say a lot of things about the F-22 that would really piss you off, but I will refrain for now. I will just say this about that POS, that the cost of maintaining is signifcantly higher than the YF-23 would have had. One example, in order to pull the engines for maintenance purposes you have to cut a hole in the very expensive RAM skin. The hole is then welded shut after the engine is reinstalled and a brand new piece of RAM outer skin applied because it is not reusable. The designers did not account for maintenance very effectively or they would have put access hatches at those points. A friend of mine was in engine school and they had a test stand for techs to practice on. She said it had so many patches in the wrong place that it would threatened the aerodynamics of the plane in flight. I won't even mention the cost of building all the maintenance pit that will be required in order to load the thing's missiles and work on the underside at all.

[pfunk]

heres the pic of the JSF lockheed X-35

lots of directing and shaft operation going into a production aircraft

[buddhafabio]

heres the pic of the JSF lockheed X-35

lots of directing and shaft operation going into a production aircraft

that is why i felt the boeing version was better. but without being political one of the guys incharge of selecting the aircraft of manufacture had to dump his share of lockeed.

[mikeszekely]

Whoa, hold up guys... while a lot of people feel that Northrop was robbed, and while the F/A-22's cost soars... I didn't think anyone was sorry that the F-35 won the JSF competition? Buddhafabio... are you saying you actually prefered the X-32? Because the F-35 is actually a relatively low-cost fighter, and the X-32's design is... well...

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah--the -35 is one of the few ones where the obviously superior plane won, and everyone agreed it was better. Buddhafabio's got to be the first person I've ever seen say the -32 was better.

And a key thing WAS the -35's engine design--the -32's was markedly inferior (especially if you watched the NOVA program), and everyone was saying one of the most important things for a new VTOL plane was to get away from the Harrier-style design--and the -32 didn't.

It also REALLY helped that Lockheed partnered with BAe.

Remember--Boeing's never designed a successful fighter, and still haven't. They do the guppy-mouth again and again, and it's rejected every time. And when the "obviously ex-MDC guys" suggested giving it a YF-23-style tail to get a massive boost in stealthiness, they rejected it. The X-32 got further than most Boeing designs before being rejected though.

Plus the fact that a production F-32 would have been redesigned to be a delta-winged plane! THAT'D sure delay the program!

Edited February 8, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Knight26]

Personnaly I think the whole JSF concept is flawed, and think both designs are crap, not a fan of stealth at all. The main issues I have are with the emphasis on stealth, sorry but passive stealth is crap, too many comprimises for not enough pay off, you loose way too much performance. I don't agree with having all the services fly essentially the same plane, sorry it doesn't work, only planes that have ever made the transition successfully were the F-86 (FJ-1 Fury, Naval Variant), the F-4, and the A-7. Everytime we tried to make a plane for everyone it failed and was only suitable for one service. ANother problem I have with the concept, the only Thrust Vectoring any of the variants have is on the B model, and that is only for VTOL. Also there are no internal guns on the B and C models, hello didn't we learn this lesson before? And then there is the fact that the B model, the VTOL version, has no internal weapons bay thereby defeating the whole stealth design. Well that is just my rant. Infact there was only one JSF design concept I thought looked like it was worth anything, it was MDC concept if I remember correctly, very similar to the final X-35 concept except that it had a canard concept, no horizontal stabilizer. I'll see if I can find pics.

[Cdr Fokker]

Knight26 - Just a technical correction; the JSF F-35B is the STOVL variant, not VTOL. It was designed with STOVL in mind, not VTOL.

[David Hingtgen]

Cdr Fokker---there's no true, accurate, definition of STOVL vs VTOL. It's whatever they feel like calling it. Has been ever since the days of the early Sea Harriers. I've seen X-35B's on TV take off and land vertically. That's good enough for me to call it VTOL.

Kinght26---yes, they're all fugly and pointless, but if they're going to build them anyway, they might as well build the better one. I'd still rather have more Block 50 F-16C's though. Sigh, on IMPORTANT things like the front-line ATF, they pick the wrong one. But for a Harrier replacement, THAT's what they spend time analyzing...

[buddhafabio]

i think we wasted money buying either one of them. unmaned air superiority fighters. and ground attack ucaves are a far better option. no pilot to get killed.

Edited February 8, 2004 by buddhafabio

[Southcross]

i think we wasted money buying either one of them. unmaned air superiority fighters. and ground attack ucaves are a far better option. no pilot to get killed.

Ack! Great... Ghost fighters... all we need now is Sharon Apple to sing the Inaugural concert

[ewilen]

Yeah--the -35 is one of the few ones where the obviously superior plane won, and everyone agreed it was better. Buddhafabio's got to be the first person I've ever seen say the -32 was better.

And a key thing WAS the -35's engine design--the -32's was markedly inferior (especially if you watched the NOVA program), and everyone was saying one of the most important things for a new VTOL plane was to get away from the Harrier-style design--and the -32 didn't.

I'll add a vote for the NOVA program on the JSF competition...although I clearly didn't retain as much as David (maybe because I only watched once, and without any prep?)...

I don't remember them saying it was necessary to get away from the Harrier-style design--in fact I remember thinking that Lockheed was taking a gamble by using a wholly new design, and while I was watching I was expecting them to lose (yes, I was that much out of the loop) given the armed forces' stick-in-the-mud mentality. I do recall that the X-32 never really performed as needed--they had to leave a bunch of panels off and stuff to get it to fly right.

Anyway, that's how I remember it--hopefully I'm not completely out in left field...

Regarding the various successful multiservice jets--note that both the F-86 and F-4 started as single-service craft. If I'm not mistaken, the F-86 (FJ-1) was adapted for naval use basically because the purpose-built designs weren't very good. I have to wonder how easy it was to land on a carrier. The F-4 on the other hand was adapted for the AF because, even though existing AF jets were okay, the F-4 kicked ass. (Yes, I know it its troubles in the early part of the VN war--blame that on ROE, improper tactics, and bad missiles. The post-Top Gun Navy and the Israelis showed what the Phantom could do.)

Did the A-7 also start as a single-service aircraft? And were there ever any successful interservice prop planes? I'm guessing the Zero and maybe some British fighters.

[Nied]

Whew! I go away for a while and look what happens.

The Air Force "officially" ranked speed and stealth as more important than agility---based on all of the above, the YF-23 should clearly have won. But then things changed (read: lobbyists/politics, and lots of little things creeping in like hangar size and access panel height), to the point that they decided the YF-22 would be built.

I think the main thing that changed the speed agility equation was when an in service Soviet fighter tiped it's nose up and flew backwards at the Paris Air show. In hindsight it was just an air show stunt with little tactical value, but it sure had people sh*ting bricks at the time.

Plus the whole "YF-23's only a demonstrator, would take a LOT of work to make a workable plane, whereas the -22 can already fire AMRAAM's" argument from the pro-22 people. And then of course after it won, the -22 got new v.stabs, h.stabs, wings, intakes, cockpit, and forward fuselage...

So while the F-22 had some changes to the wing sweep (along with changes to all the other leading edges to maintain stealth) and the it's cockpit moved foreward; all the YF-23 needed was a new fuselage.

The YF-23, with the least powerful engines, was faster than the YF-22 with the most powerful engines. The YF-23 is inherently faster due to being way sleeker. It's so sleek, it surprised the engineers and pilots with how fast it accelerated on its first flight, how easily it supercruised, and they immediately stopped broadcasting its speed the first time it went to full 'burner after supercruising with the YF120's to hide just how fast it was going. It's really fast.

IIRC a YF-22 with GE120s would beat a YF-23 with PW119s by a couple of mach points. I thought I read that in Bill Swaetman's book but I can't find it right now. The YF-23 was the faster aircraft though (at least according to Northrup's estimates), but the difference was quite small when using the 119.

I can say a lot of things about the F-22 that would really piss you off, but I will refrain for now. I will just say this about that POS, that the cost of maintaining is signifcantly higher than the YF-23 would have had. One example, in order to pull the engines for maintenance purposes you have to cut a hole in the very expensive RAM skin. The hole is then welded shut after the engine is reinstalled and a brand new piece of RAM outer skin applied because it is not reusable. The designers did not account for maintenance very effectively or they would have put access hatches at those points. A friend of mine was in engine school and they had a test stand for techs to practice on. She said it had so many patches in the wrong place that it would threatened the aerodynamics of the plane in flight.

This doesn't make sense, nearly all the sources I have say that the F-22 only has RAM applied to it's leading edges and other critical areas, it seems strange that it would be covering the entire underside of the plane. From your description it sounds more like maintnence on the deeply buried engines of the F-117.

I won't even mention the cost of building all the maintenance pit that will be required in order to load the thing's missiles and work on the underside at all.

The plane sits that low for a reason. Almost all of the access panels are at chest hight for ease of maintnence. There's no need for a specialised "pit" for loading or maintnence, weapons are loaded with the same standard loader that the Air force is curently using.

Basic history of aviation: nothing spectacular ever comes of slow, steady progress. Be risky, take leaps and bounds. B-47, 747, F-4, F-14, SR-71, B-2----the really good stuff is always very different from what comes before, not just an improved version.

Well the F-22 is hardly an incremental improvement. Maybe not as huge of a leap as the YF-23 (I'd argue it is, just in a different direction) but still quite huge.

[mikeszekely]

Whew! I go away for a while and look what happens.

The Air Force "officially" ranked speed and stealth as more important than agility---based on all of the above, the YF-23 should clearly have won. But then things changed (read: lobbyists/politics, and lots of little things creeping in like hangar size and access panel height), to the point that they decided the YF-22 would be built.

I think the main thing that changed the speed agility equation was when an in service Soviet fighter tiped it's nose up and flew backwards at the Paris Air show. In hindsight it was just an air show stunt with little tactical value, but it sure had people sh*ting bricks at the time.

Plus the whole "YF-23's only a demonstrator, would take a LOT of work to make a workable plane, whereas the -22 can already fire AMRAAM's" argument from the pro-22 people. And then of course after it won, the -22 got new v.stabs, h.stabs, wings, intakes, cockpit, and forward fuselage...

So while the F-22 had some changes to the wing sweep (along with changes to all the other leading edges to maintain stealth) and the it's cockpit moved foreward; all the YF-23 needed was a new fuselage.

The YF-23, with the least powerful engines, was faster than the YF-22 with the most powerful engines. The YF-23 is inherently faster due to being way sleeker. It's so sleek, it surprised the engineers and pilots with how fast it accelerated on its first flight, how easily it supercruised, and they immediately stopped broadcasting its speed the first time it went to full 'burner after supercruising with the YF120's to hide just how fast it was going. It's really fast.

IIRC a YF-22 with GE120s would beat a YF-23 with PW119s by a couple of mach points. I thought I read that in Bill Swaetman's book but I can't find it right now. The YF-23 was the faster aircraft though (at least according to Northrup's estimates), but the difference was quite small when using the 119.

I can say a lot of things about the F-22 that would really piss you off, but I will refrain for now. I will just say this about that POS, that the cost of maintaining is signifcantly higher than the YF-23 would have had. One example, in order to pull the engines for maintenance purposes you have to cut a hole in the very expensive RAM skin. The hole is then welded shut after the engine is reinstalled and a brand new piece of RAM outer skin applied because it is not reusable. The designers did not account for maintenance very effectively or they would have put access hatches at those points. A friend of mine was in engine school and they had a test stand for techs to practice on. She said it had so many patches in the wrong place that it would threatened the aerodynamics of the plane in flight.

This doesn't make sense, nearly all the sources I have say that the F-22 only has RAM applied to it's leading edges and other critical areas, it seems strange that it would be covering the entire underside of the plane. From your description it sounds more like maintnence on the deeply buried engines of the F-117.

I won't even mention the cost of building all the maintenance pit that will be required in order to load the thing's missiles and work on the underside at all.

The plane sits that low for a reason. Almost all of the access panels are at chest hight for ease of maintnence. There's no need for a specialised "pit" for loading or maintnence, weapons are loaded with the same standard loader that the Air force is curently using.

Basic history of aviation: nothing spectacular ever comes of slow, steady progress. Be risky, take leaps and bounds. B-47, 747, F-4, F-14, SR-71, B-2----the really good stuff is always very different from what comes before, not just an improved version.

Well the F-22 is hardly an incremental improvement. Maybe not as huge of a leap as the YF-23 (I'd argue it is, just in a different direction) but still quite huge.

Exactly... even the strongest supporters of the YF-23 grudgingly admit that the F/A-22 is still probably the most superior of all the air superiority fighters in or going into service. It has a distinct advantage in BVR combat, and equal or better in a dogfight. All that, despite Knight26's concerns about the compromises of a passive stealth design...

As for the JSF, we really can't keep using the fighters we've been using since the 70's. Especially since the F/A-22's production orders keep dropping and since the Navy decided to use Super Hornets instead of buying a new fighter to replace the F-14. And while the F-35 might not blow people away with its performance, the end result of the program was a fighter that's more than capable of replacing Harriers for the Marines and the Royal Navy in its STOVL configuration, and a fighter that can perform equal to or better than the F-16, but with a much greater range and payload, and again that distinct advantage in BVR combat. It's true that the F-35 is at a disadvantage when dogfighting against fighters like the Dassault Rafale (not to single out the French, but they are a little more liberal when deciding who to sell fighters too), but that's not the F-35's job. That's for the F/A-22 and the F-15E.

Stealth, passive or active, is a reasonable focus for American fighters for the time being (as long as we can maintain air superiority in WVR combat, which the F/A-22 does), because Americans are the only ones focusing on stealth right now. That gives us a major advantage in BVR combat, and that helps minimize American casualties.

Unmanned recon is okay, but unmanned fighters are a bad idea. There's no substitute for the human element. Worse, without the threat of loss of life, war becomes a game.

[pfunk]

as for the JSF, not all of them will have vertical take off capabilities, only the navy and marines i believe. and its a low budget plane fo rwhat you get. I think the project is pretty nice myself and its very cost effective budget wise.

[mikeszekely]

as for the JSF, not all of them will have vertical take off capabilities, only the navy and marines i believe. and its a low budget plane fo rwhat you get. I think the project is pretty nice myself and its very cost effective budget wise.

The Marines and Royal Navy will get the STOVL version. The Navy version isn't STOVL, but is supposed to have the ability to be easily converted to STOVL. Where the forward lift fan is on the STOVL version, the Air Force and Navy versions will have an extra fuel tank.

[Zentrandude]

I can say a lot of things about the F-22 that would really piss you off, but I will refrain for now. I will just say this about that POS, that the cost of maintaining is signifcantly higher than the YF-23 would have had. One example, in order to pull the engines for maintenance purposes you have to cut a hole in the very expensive RAM skin. The hole is then welded shut after the engine is reinstalled and a brand new piece of RAM outer skin applied because it is not reusable. The designers did not account for maintenance very effectively or they would have put access hatches at those points. A friend of mine was in engine school and they had a test stand for techs to practice on. She said it had so many patches in the wrong place that it would threatened the aerodynamics of the plane in flight.

This doesn't make sense, nearly all the sources I have say that the F-22 only has RAM applied to it's leading edges and other critical areas, it seems strange that it would be covering the entire underside of the plane. From your description it sounds more like maintnence on the deeply buried engines of the F-117.

it does make sence. after all i would consider the belly of a aircraft critical area since most radar is on the ground and the plane would be above it. coarse it doesn't mean they already revised the design to fix any flaws.

[David Hingtgen]

zentrandude---frontal area is the critical for stealth, at least for fighters. Then rear. (For all).

mikeszekely--whoa, hey---I give the YF-22 the edge in close combat, but BVR? Where do you get that? YF-23 is stealthier, and faster--it can launch AMRAAMs from longer range at a higher speed (the two go together), and is harder to detect/counterattack.

[Nied]

mikeszekely--whoa, hey---I give the YF-22 the edge in close combat, but BVR? Where do you get that? YF-23 is stealthier, and faster--it can launch AMRAAMs from longer range at a higher speed (the two go together), and is harder to detect/counterattack.

I think Mike meant that it's vastly superior compared to any other fighter in or near service, not the YF-23.

[Guvava]

I'm wondering if the YF-23 will see the light of day sometime, kind of like the F-16 vs. F-18 competition decades ago, where the F-16 was chosen for AF instead of the hornet.

[ewilen]

Unlikely, because we just don't need a big expensive BVR assassin anymore. (Hopefully we never will.) Even the F-22 is a questionable use of funds. And it's already been decided not to bother with an ATF replacement for the Tomcat--that's why we have the Super Hornet.

[Graham]

I'm not a big fan of the JSF concept. It seems to be too much of a 'Jack-of-all-trades' plane IMO. It tries to be too many things at once and does nothing very well.

• Limited payload, unless external pylons are added, which compromises stealth.
  
• No gun on some models (will they never learn). Sure you can add a gun pack in the internal bay, but that ties up space needed for other ordnance.
  
• Limited self defence capability. Can't carry Sidewinders internally (seeker head partially blocked by body) so has to use AMRAAMS instead. OK for medium to long range, but not so good in a knife fight (and when is BRV combat ever allowed anyway)!
  
• Poor rear visibilty.
  
• Not really faster or more agile than existing planes.
  
• No off-boresight targetting (like most US planes)!
  

I know that the JSF is supposed to be 70% geared towards ground missions and 30% for air-to-air, but it seems curiously poorly suited for both IMO.

And yes I know that the JSF is supposed to use internal weapons only for the early days of a campaign thus maximizing stealth and will only start carrying external weapons only once air superiority has been acheived. However, even with air superiority, there may still be ground threats that haven't been neutralized, long into the campaign.

It always makes me smile when I read about how short range air-to-air combat is a thing of the past and that all air combats will take place at long ranges with missiles (people having been saying this for what, the last 50 years LOL!). In theory this sounds good, but modern rules of enagement are so tough, especially when operating in an environment with other allied forces aircraft, i.e. Desert Storm or pretty much every NATO/allied joint operation in the past decade, that getting a visual ID before firing is essential.

I think the US is placing far too much emphasis on radar defeating stealth recently. It's expensive and difficult to maintain and Infra Red Search & Track (IRST) sytems are improving by leaps and bounds that an aircraft with a good IRST system will probably be able to detect, track, lock-on and fire at a so called 'Stealthy' F-35 or F/A-22 anyway.

Personally, I think the the Europeans have the right idea about multi-role planes with the Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale, which I think are superior to anything the US has in the air, except probably the F/A-22.

Graham

[mikeszekely]

I'm not a big fan of the JSF concept. It seems to be too much of a 'Jack-of-all-trades' plane IMO. It tries to be too many things at once and does nothing very well.

• Limited payload, unless external pylons are added, which compromises stealth.
  
• No gun on some models (will they never learn). Sure you can add a gun pack in the internal bay, but that ties up space needed for other ordnance.
  
• Limited self defence capability. Can't carry Sidewinders internally (seeker head partially blocked by body) so has to use AMRAAMS instead. OK for medium to long range, but not so good in a knife fight (and when is BRV combat ever allowed anyway)!
  
• Poor rear visibilty.
  
• Not really faster or more agile than existing planes.
  
• No off-boresight targetting (like most US planes)!
  

I know that the JSF is supposed to be 70% geared towards ground missions and 30% for air-to-air, but it seems curiously poorly suited for both IMO.

And yes I know that the JSF is supposed to use internal weapons only for the early days of a campaign thus maximizing stealth and will only start carrying external weapons only once air superiority has been acheived. However, even with air superiority, there may still be ground threats that haven't been neutralized, long into the campaign.

It always makes me smile when I read about how short range air-to-air combat is a thing of the past and that all air combats will take place at long ranges with missiles (people having been saying this for what, the last 50 years LOL!). In theory this sounds good, but modern rules of enagement are so tough, especially when operating in an environment with other allied forces aircraft, i.e. Desert Storm or pretty much every NATO/allied joint operation in the past decade, that getting a visual ID before firing is essential.

I think the US is placing far too much emphasis on radar defeating stealth recently. It's expensive and difficult to maintain and Infra Red Search & Track (IRST) sytems are improving by leaps and bounds that an aircraft with a good IRST system will probably be able to detect, track, lock-on and fire at a so called 'Stealthy' F-35 or F/A-22 anyway.

Personally, I think the the Europeans have the right idea about multi-role planes with the Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale, which I think are superior to anything the US has in the air, except probably the F/A-22.

Graham

But that's the whole point... it's not a jack-of-all trades. It can carry a larger payload and has a greater range than the F-16, and that was first and foremost what it was supposed to replace (David can tell you better than I how it stacks up to the F/A-18 and the Harrier). The Navy and the USAF have the Super Hornets, Raptors, and upgraded F-15s for other roles. Only the Marines want to use it in heavier, close-combat role, and they can mount all sorts of external weapons on it, as they're less concerned with stealth.

[mikeszekely]

mikeszekely--whoa, hey---I give the YF-22 the edge in close combat, but BVR?  Where do you get that?  YF-23 is stealthier, and faster--it can launch AMRAAMs from longer range at a higher speed (the two go together), and is harder to detect/counterattack.

I think Mike meant that it's vastly superior compared to any other fighter in or near service, not the YF-23.

Exactly. In my original post, I compared the F/A-22 to other fighters "in or going into service" to deliberate exclude the YF-23. I'm certainly willing to concede the YF-23 could be superior in lord knows how many ways, since so much of the info is still classified. The USAF would only have settled for the lesser fighter providing they felt that their fighter was still better than everyone elses. By that, I meant that the F/A-22 is expected to beat the Eurofighter, the Gripen, the Rafale, the Super Flankers, etc.

BTW, I heard that in the end, the YF-22 won the ATF competition not because they felt that it outperformed the YF-23 in any catagory. Rather, the YF-22 was picked because it was expected that a carrier variant could have been made to replace the F-14, whereas the YF-23 would have simply been too big.

[Coota0]

I never did figure out how that big ass bass mouthed air intake was stalthy on the X-32

[Graham]

The USAF would only have settled for the lesser fighter providing they felt that their fighter was still better than everyone elses. By that, I meant that the F/A-22 is expected to beat the Eurofighter, the Gripen, the Rafale, the Super Flankers, etc.

The F/A-22 will be able to beat the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale, but the Eurofighter is supposed to be better than the Gripen and Rafale and any older planes the US has, including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

Graham

[Graham]

But that's the whole point... it's not a jack-of-all trades. It can carry a larger payload and has a greater range than the F-16, and that was first and foremost what it was supposed to replace (David can tell you better than I how it stacks up to the F/A-18 and the Harrier). The Navy and the USAF have the Super Hornets, Raptors, and upgraded F-15s for other roles. Only the Marines want to use it in heavier, close-combat role, and they can mount all sorts of external weapons on it, as they're less concerned with stealth.

AFAIK, he JSF is designed to replace a lot of different aircraft, not just the F-16. Plus the JSF is mostly (70%) optimised for ground attack missions, not air to air unlike the F16.

IIRC, the F-35's payload is pretty small if just using internal weapon bays. Of course using external pylons, the payload increases greatly, but then stealth goes out of the window.

Basically, you have an aircrart that is probably going to be complicated and difficult to maintain, has a limited payload if it wants to remain stealthy. Has poor rear visibilty due to not having a raised buble canopy (how many times do aircraft designers need to relearn this lesson). Has no internal gun on most versions. Has little ability to defend itself in a close-in dogfight, due to the inability to carry a short range AAM. Is not really faster or more manueverable than many other modern fighters. IMO It's one big compromise that doesn't really perform especially well in any area.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

I'm pretty much agreeing with Graham here----internal payload is almost nothing, and has almost no close-range air-to-air capability. And if you want it to carry anything more than 2 JDAM's for offense, your stealth is gone.

The F-35 is superior to a Harrier in every way. However, most everything is. But to make it an F-16/18 replacement? Very apprehensive about that. It should be used for a niche stealth role, IMHO. Of course, if we had naval YF-23's (or even F-22's) we wouldn't have that problem... (I am a fan of *big* planes---they are inherently better IMHO---you don't see them heavily modified to add fuel, fuel tanks, range, fuel, missiles, pylons, more pylons, and more fuel every five years---they're big enough to carry decent fuel and payload as is). If nothing else, the F-22 is big, and that right there solves a lot of problems. Big enough to start with.

Coota---you're right, the intake wasn't stealthy on the -32. One of many reasons the X-35 was way stealthier.

[Graham]

The F-35 is superior to a Harrier in every way. However, most everything is.

Actually, I was under the impression that the Sea Harrier could hold it's own quite well in air-to-air combat, even against supposedly superior and more modern aircraft.

One of my favorite books is 'Sea Harrier Over the Falklands' by Commander Sharkey Ward, who was one of the Sea Harrier squadron Commanders (800 or 801 sqdn, I forget?), during the Falklands war.

Anyway, in one chapter of the book he talks about how the RAF Sea Harriers used to practice against US planes stationed in UK and Germany and they were frequently able to beat even US F-15s in mock combat.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Yargh! My first draft specifically mentioned the non-Sea Harrier. But I couldn't really think of a good way to say it. I hold the current FRS.2 Sea Harrier as a great BVR fighter.

Ok, I'll try again:

The F-35 is way better than the AV-8B+, and the GRS.Mk7 current-issue ground-attack/CAS non-Sea non-air-combat Harriers.

[F-ZeroOne]

The Harrier does have a few unusual advantages. One, its small, and in visual combat small is good, as it makes you harder to acquire by sight. Its also been stated that the Harrier is a very odd shape - its sometimes hard to tell which end you're looking at as it doesn't have a conventional engine nozzle system and has a similar profile from either the front or the rear.

Also, as anyone who has seen one at an airshow can attest, it is almost ecrtainly the loudest aircraft of its size that there has ever been! It probably just sneaked up behind those F-15s and then went to full throttle, instantly making the F-15s deaf...!

[mikeszekely]

The USAF would only have settled for the lesser fighter providing they felt that their fighter was still better than everyone elses.  By that, I meant that the F/A-22 is expected to beat the Eurofighter, the Gripen, the Rafale, the Super Flankers, etc.

The F/A-22 will be able to beat the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale, but the Eurofighter is supposed to be better than the Gripen and Rafale and any older planes the US has, including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

Graham

Well, I don't really have any info who was supposed to be able to beat who, and I meant no disrespect to the Eurofighter by catagorizing it with the others. My point was simply that the F/A-22 is supposed to beat all the other fighters in or going into service. If it wasn't... say it beat the Gripen and the Rafale, but not the Eurofighter, then the YF-23 would have won.