This series of 2002 stories won a 2003 Pulitzer Prize. It should be considered required reading and gives us a good picture of the USMC STOVL story from its' start up until 2002.
The F-35B has no protective armour either. The F-35B doesn't carry flame-retardant foam in its fuel tanks because the foam displaces fuel. The fuel tanks are not equipped with self-sealing membranes to plug bullet or shrapnel holes.
Also the fact the F-35's fuselage is too thinned skinned. Because the F-35B is too incapable of performing close air support duties, it will be an very easy target to shoot down. The F-35 is a delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the engine and to the fuselage. Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety precautions on the aircraft to protect against fire and very little they can do because the .22 Rifle or any form of gunfire can very easily penetrate the skin on the airframe and causes it to catch on fire like a “blow torch”.
Also the F-35B is also a single engine which gives it little margin for error. The very thirsty thrust-producing of the F-35 will be extremely hot. The back end of the F-35 in full afterburner is something like 1600 degrees (Fahrenheit). In terms of temperature, aluminum combusts at 1100. You are talking about something really, really hot. If you have got a dirty big sensor on the front of your Su-35S or your PAK-FA or whatever, it lights up like Christmas lights and there is nothing you can do about it. And the plume, because of the symmetric exhaust, is all over the place. It is not shielded, it is not ducted in any useful way.
Oh, and you know what the Marines need right? Personally I don't think the Marines need fighters, that's what the Navy is for. If they want to replace their F-18/AV-8Bs then the F-35B is the one and ONLY aircraft that can do the job. Unless you have a better idea then STFU.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but unfortunately this is true that I've found the report that all F-35variants will be vulnerable to ground fire etc.
The F-35 was defined during the mid-1990s to have “affordable” aerodynamic performance, stealth performance, sensor capabilities and weapons loads to be “affordably” effective against the most common threat systems of the era past – legacy Soviet Cold War era weapons, not for the 21st Century emerging threats.
The F-35 is designed primarily to support ground forces on the battlefield with some self defence capabilities and is not suitable for the developing regional environment and, again not suitable for close air support missions. The aircraft is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence due to limited range/endurance, limited agility, limited weapons load and limited supersonic speed. As its limitations are inherent to the design, they cannot be altered by incremental upgrades.
The F-35 will be ineffective against the current generation of extremely powerful advanced Russian and Chinese systems, as detailed above; In any combat engagements between the F-35 and such threat systems, most or all F-35 aircraft will be rapidly lost to enemy fire.
Older hose/drogue systems had pounds per minute fuel rates that were OK for fighters of the day but when SAC was in its' young days when fielding the B-52 in the late 50's they needed something with a higher fuel transfer rate, and that is what the KC-135 with the boom did. Around 6500 pounds per minute. Back in the day this allowed you to be connected to the tanker for less time. This also drove the C-141 and C-5 thinking. Newer hose-drouge systems can go much faster than they once did approaching that of the boom system. A real tanker person could give a better explanation. Interesting too, when refueling... legacy Hornet carries around 10k internal fuel, Super 13-14k depending on the seats and of course F-35A B and C are even more. So, things like the Airbus series, older KC-10 and newer KC-46 are important considerations when 4 F-35s are approaching you post-strike and need gas to get home. Also of course, using hose-drogue, depending on your tanker, you can be connected to 2 or 3 receivers at the same time.
Just thought you be aware that the F-35 will not be as stealthy despite Lockheed Martin claims the aircraft can get through to anti-access high threats.
The Russians have developed the Nebo M Mobile “Counter Stealth” Radar, also equipping the advanced S-400 and S-500 SAM systems which will make the F-35 obsolete.
If you want to find out more about this counter stealth radar, here’s a description if you’re interested.
Development initiated late 1990s leveraging experience in Nebo SVU VHF-Band AESA radar;
2012-2013 IOC intended;
Designed from the outset to detect stealth fighters and provide early warning and track data to missile batteries and fighters;
The VHF component will provide a significant detection and tracking capability against fighter and UCAV sized stealth targets;
High off-road capability permits placement well away from built up areas, enabling concealment;
Rapid deploy and stow times permit evasion of air attacks by frequent movement, defeats cruise missiles like JASSM;
Initial Nebo M builds for Russian Air Defence Forces, but expected like other “counter-stealth” radars to be marketed for global export to arbitrary clientele.
The VHF band element in that radar will detect the F-35 at a distance of tens of miles. That is without a doubt. What that means is that the aircraft is going to be in great difficulty if it tries to deal with what I call a modern or contemporary threat. The same is also true when you deal with these newer stealth fighters, because they are designed to compete with the F-22. They fly higher; they are faster and more agile—much, much more agile. They have more powerful radars and much, much better antenna packages for other sensors. The F-35 is not meeting its specifications and its specifications are inadequate to deal with the changed environment.
If the F-35 was to be able to meet its specifications, the aircraft will have the ability of going up against a 1980s Soviet air defence system of the type that we saw destroyed very effectively in Libya last year, the F-35 would be reasonably be effective in that environment, because these older Soviet radars would not see it.
But if you are putting F-35 up against the newer generation of much, much more powerful Russian radars and some of the newer Chinese radars, the aircraft is quite detectable, especially from behind, the upper side and from the lower side of the fuselage.
Also the Su-35S Super Flanker-E and the PAK-FA are equipped with the L-Band AESA's which are mounted on the front leading edge flaps and on top of the tail fins. This device is used for targetting to be able to track LO/VLO stealth planes including the F-35 especially from behind, the upper side and from the lower sides which will perform just like the Nebo-M.
The F-35 is neither balanced survivability nor a true stealth 5th generation aircraft. The F-35 has no credible defensive jamming.
Those selling the idea that the F-35′s AESA radar as a defensive device against enemy terminal radar concerns aren’t believable. Power output limits, thermal concerns along with the limited field of view and in-band frequency limits make the idea of the F-35 radar as a defensive solution of little value. It is only useful on a marketing PowerPoint slides to the clueless. And, unlike the designers of the F-22, the F-35 will not be in possession of true stealth, high-speed and high altitude to help degrade enemy no-escape-zone firing solutions of weapons.
For more information of why the F-35 is a wrong aircraft etc etc.
You can research on Eric's website
Air Power Australia http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
The main impact of F-35B not having armor/resilience is that it will not be usable for low altitude air support, strafing runs etc. Unlike, for example, the A-10. There is no reasonable way to armor a fast jet against SAM hits anyway.
@ArmyAbrams Tanker
You are correct that F-35B is the closest existing/in development plane for a 1:1 AV-8B replacement. But I would say that the base concept itself is outdated. It is not capable of surviving/suppressing modern SAMs/fighters yet costs too much (vs payload) for a bomb truck.
If we go with the idea that AF and Navy will handle the fighter side then what the Marines need is: - a full stealth anti-ground jet with short takeoff and short/vertical landing. Like a Marine follow up to the F-117. A "first day"/"fast response" strike platform that can evade modern IADS/fighters. and/or - a no stealth high resilience plane (with integrated jammers) that trades speed for lift and can achieve short takeoff/landing by going slow. A bomb truck that can do close to the ground air support and stay in the area for a long time without refuelling.
You are not alone in your belief. Unfortunately the fools here are so one-eyed in their hatred of the F-35 that they cannot fathom what is happening or required in the real world.
They also come up with ridiculous statements to defend their position such as "the F-35's fuselage is too thinned skinned" - sheez, give me a break!!!
Another Peter: You're comparing a SAM system that we know nothing about. Your making it sound like its a combat proven system. If stealth is so useless, then why would the Almighty Russian stealth killers put billions of dollars into stealth aircraft!!!! Seems to me that these anti stealth radars are not as useful as the Russians claim they are. Your're wasting your time with the exhaust argument, any jet that burns fuel with afterburners will leave a heat trail. No Pak Fa or J-20 will hide their heat. signatures!! Another stupid debate is that the F-35 can't take punishment from bullets. NO FIGHTERS ARE DESIGNED TO TAKE LARGE CALIBER HITS. F-35 ain't a fucken A-10 num nuts. You don't know the F-35s jamming capabilities for one reason, classified. Your a nerd who thinks they know the exact capabilities of an aircraft that's still in testing. Take a breath for a minute and see how the F-35 does in combat instead of living in a simulation.
The Russians for one are NOT just pouring millions into stealth aircraft. They are evolving a proven platform, and that evolution includes LO shaping and powerful EW capabilities. They are not putting stealth first, rather its just one more facet added to proven survivability strategies. Its a completely different approach. Their new SAMs are also an evolution of a proven platform to the best of my knowledge. Building on what works works for the Ruskies, and if you consider what they have been able to accomplish considering thier economy these last few decades, they have done the impossible given American assumptions. Just something to think about.
You might also want to think about the fact that the Russians probably know that there are plenty of Americans like you, overly commited to a futurist fantasy once called the revolution in military affairs, who will gladly use the Pak-FA to justify our current course. If the Russians thought, rightly or wrongly, that the Americans were bankrupting themselves by putting all of thier eggs in one basket, and that basket had a hole in it, why not encourage them? This same kind of thinking may apply to recent Chinese developments, although I think they may be looking for prestige via stealth, although they might realize that we wont be prioritizing anti stealth measures any time soon. Or they might be happy to keep fighter conbat going in our chosen direction, given thier booming electronics sector and theyre still weak engine industry.
Your right about one thing though, the F-35 is no A-10. Thanks for all but admitting that it shouldnt replace the A-10, and that any branch looking for CAS should look elsewhere. Bad guys have guns, and close air support means getting close to bad guys. Is 7.62x39 large enough for you? How about auto cannon hits other fighters have linped home with?
Wil Leach "close air support means getting close to bad guys" - WRONG!!!
Close Air Support is support of troops in close contact with the enemy. It has nothing to do with how close the aircraft is to the action. In fact, in Afghanistan, CAS has been successfully undertaken by strategic bombers!
The Russians have spent billions on a newly designed aircraft specifically to evade radar. Many systems they're using in the PAK FA are off the shelf items from the SU-35, other than a few electronics, its a new design to them. Obviously plan form alignment has been around for a while now, giving the russias an evolving platform thanks to the raptor. Russian S- series are more for export, they are very vulnerable to the F-35s DAS and EOTS system. Until I see these stealth killing missiles take out a stealth aircraft, they will only be just another ordinary missile defense. I think replacing the A-10 with the F-35 is a terrible idea. I say create a new aircraft around the gau-8.
Much like the F-35 is vulnerable to any IRST (East or West) created in the last 20 years. And, at least the F-22 offers huge performance to minimize some of the effects of threats.
The only reason to have STOVL capability is to operate off amphibious carriers.
In the real world, US Marines don't use Harriers on expeditionary or rough airfields. They stick to fixed airfields...The insurgent attack at Camp Bastion (last September), which destroyed 6 US Marine Harriers and damaged two others in Afghanistan; had two large fixed airfields that were capable to handling C-17 transports. One is 2569 yards long. The other is 3827 yards long. What's the point of having STOVL capability here?!
They're better off with a modern interpretation of the A-4 Skyhawk. (New design based on it). Replace the amphibious carrier with a small carrier (2 catapults with angled deck like the now-retired USS Midway (CV-41), but modified to suit US Marine requirements). Essentially, a self-contained force focusing on supporting the US Marine folks on the ground.
Why base a new design on A-4 Skyhawk? Because it was tough, agile, low cost in both acquiring and operating. Most of all, it was simple and easy to maintain! (Less time in maintenance and more time in the air!) ...The US Marines had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give up their Skyhawks in favour of the Harrier. (They skipped the A-7 Corsair II, while the US Navy adopted that light attack plane).
Well,something is wrong here...If stealth does not work,then why the F-22? If it is a performance issue,then why not the F-15?Unlike most claims it could have better performance than the F-22... If stealth does work,then why not the F-35? I have to say this:if VLO tech is outdated then aircraft like the F-22 are not needed.But i dout thats the case.Everybody is after VLO tech and everybody knows that IRST is very limited,in particular in bad weather...if anything,fighters like the SU-X or its son the PAK FA are vulnerable to IR detection than the Raptor or the JSF...
You guys are based on belony statements in Lockheed Martin's, DoD and USMC personnels belief. Unfortunately the fools like you two here are so one-eyed on your own liking of the F-35 that you guys cannot fathom what will be happening or required in the real world.
You two also come up with ridiculous statements to defend your own position such as "the F-35 is a correct aircraft for air superiority/close air support/battlefield interdiction etc" - gees, give me a break!!!
I'm certainly not wasting my time with the exhaust argument, the F-35's exhuast burns more fuel with afterburner will leave a heat trail the most. No F-35 will hide their heat signatures!!
The F-35 is perfectly incapable of CAS. It's very lightly armed.
The GREAT debate is that the F-35 can't take punishment from bullets. If you think my argument is stupid, go and talk to Pierre Sprey or Winslow Wheeler to get a clear picture that the F-35 is incapable of performing close air support missions.
I reckon both of you guys are nerds who thinks the F-35 is the only aircraft that is suitable for the CAS requirements etc. Why don't you take a breath for a minute and research why the F-35 is illsuited to the Marine Corp etc.
I certainly do know about the F-35s classified jamming capabilities for one reason.
This is a logical fallacy, the argument being that if you don’t have access to classified data, simulation results will be ipso-facto incorrect. I had access to classified material at the highest level on the JSF, and I was asked to make an assessment of the aircraft, which I did in a highly classified document of which only two copies were produced. In addition, I've described the process whereby I compared the result of classified simulations with those produced by my colleagues and acquaintances in the defence industry, and I found no significant differences.
I reckon both of you people shouldn't be here if you folks don't like the criticisms about the F-35 can't perform anything. I suggest that both of you should be transfered to the wacky Australian Aviation website that are extremely clueless and come up with ridiculous agendas to make every outlie statements to defend their position that the F-35 is the only aircraft to fulfill any requirements.
BTW ArmyAbrams Tanker. I didn't say the F-35 ain't a A-10. Don't put your words into my mouth you idiot.
20 comments:
This is why Marines need the F-35.
For comparison, Gripen engine change takes less than a hour in some remote road strip.
@ ArmyAbrams Tanker
"This is why Marines need the F-35".
You don't realise the F-35B is a wrong aircraft for the USMC.
@ ArmyAbrams Tanker
The F-35 will be 50 times worse.
The F-35B has no protective armour either. The F-35B doesn't carry flame-retardant foam in its fuel tanks because the foam displaces fuel. The fuel tanks are not equipped with self-sealing membranes to plug bullet or shrapnel holes.
Also the fact the F-35's fuselage is too thinned skinned. Because the F-35B is too incapable of performing close air support duties, it will be an very easy target to shoot down. The F-35 is a delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the engine and to the fuselage. Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety precautions on the aircraft to protect against fire and very little they can do because the .22 Rifle or any form of gunfire can very easily penetrate the skin on the airframe and causes it to catch on fire like a “blow torch”.
Also the F-35B is also a single engine which gives it little margin for error. The very thirsty thrust-producing of the F-35 will be extremely hot. The back end of the F-35 in full afterburner is something like 1600 degrees (Fahrenheit). In terms of temperature, aluminum combusts at 1100. You are talking about something really, really hot. If you have got a dirty big sensor on the front of your Su-35S or your PAK-FA or whatever, it lights up like Christmas lights and there is nothing you can do about it. And the plume, because of the symmetric exhaust, is all over the place. It is not shielded, it is not ducted in any useful way.
The F-35 will also be a widow maker.
Oh, and you know what the Marines need right? Personally I don't think the Marines need fighters, that's what the Navy is for. If they want to replace their F-18/AV-8Bs then the F-35B is the one and ONLY aircraft that can do the job. Unless you have a better idea then STFU.
@ ArmyAbrams Tanker
Are you still around.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but unfortunately this is true that I've found the report that all F-35variants will be vulnerable to ground fire etc.
The F-35 was defined during the mid-1990s to have “affordable” aerodynamic performance, stealth performance, sensor capabilities and weapons loads to be “affordably” effective against the most common threat systems of the era past – legacy Soviet Cold War era weapons, not for the 21st Century emerging threats.
The F-35 is designed primarily to support ground forces on the battlefield with some self defence capabilities and is not suitable for the developing regional environment and, again not suitable for close air support missions. The aircraft is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence due to limited range/endurance, limited agility, limited weapons load and limited supersonic speed. As its limitations are inherent to the design, they cannot be altered by incremental upgrades.
The F-35 will be ineffective against the current generation of extremely powerful advanced Russian and Chinese systems, as detailed above; In any combat engagements between the F-35 and such threat systems, most or all F-35 aircraft will be rapidly lost to enemy fire.
different question gents. its my understanding that the AF refueling version is much faster than the Navy drogue and chute. is that true?
Older hose/drogue systems had pounds per minute fuel rates that were OK for fighters of the day but when SAC was in its' young days when fielding the B-52 in the late 50's they needed something with a higher fuel transfer rate, and that is what the KC-135 with the boom did. Around 6500 pounds per minute. Back in the day this allowed you to be connected to the tanker for less time. This also drove the C-141 and C-5 thinking. Newer hose-drouge systems can go much faster than they once did approaching that of the boom system. A real tanker person could give a better explanation. Interesting too, when refueling... legacy Hornet carries around 10k internal fuel, Super 13-14k depending on the seats and of course F-35A B and C are even more. So, things like the Airbus series, older KC-10 and newer KC-46 are important considerations when 4 F-35s are approaching you post-strike and need gas to get home. Also of course, using hose-drogue, depending on your tanker, you can be connected to 2 or 3 receivers at the same time.
Hello ArmyAbrams Tanker
Just thought you be aware that the F-35 will not be as stealthy despite Lockheed Martin claims the aircraft can get through to anti-access high threats.
The Russians have developed the Nebo M Mobile “Counter Stealth” Radar, also equipping the advanced S-400 and S-500 SAM systems which will make the F-35 obsolete.
If you want to find out more about this counter stealth radar, here’s a description if you’re interested.
Development initiated late 1990s leveraging experience in Nebo SVU VHF-Band AESA radar;
2012-2013 IOC intended;
Designed from the outset to detect stealth fighters and provide early warning and track data to missile batteries and fighters;
The VHF component will provide a significant detection and tracking capability against fighter and UCAV sized stealth targets;
High off-road capability permits placement well away from built up areas, enabling concealment;
Rapid deploy and stow times permit evasion of air attacks by frequent movement, defeats cruise missiles like JASSM;
Initial Nebo M builds for Russian Air Defence Forces, but expected like other “counter-stealth” radars to be marketed for global export to arbitrary clientele.
The VHF band element in that radar will detect the F-35 at a distance of tens of miles. That is without a doubt. What that means is that the aircraft is going to be in great difficulty if it tries to deal with what I call a modern or contemporary threat. The same is also true when you deal with these newer stealth fighters, because they are designed to compete with the F-22. They fly higher; they are faster and more agile—much, much more agile. They have more powerful radars and much, much better antenna packages for other sensors. The F-35 is not meeting its specifications and its specifications are inadequate to deal with the changed environment.
If the F-35 was to be able to meet its specifications, the aircraft will have the ability of going up against a 1980s Soviet air defence system of the type that we saw destroyed very effectively in Libya last year, the F-35 would be reasonably be effective in that environment, because these older Soviet radars would not see it.
But if you are putting F-35 up against the newer generation of much, much more powerful Russian radars and some of the newer Chinese radars, the aircraft is quite detectable, especially from behind, the upper side and from the lower side of the fuselage.
Also the Su-35S Super Flanker-E and the PAK-FA are equipped with the L-Band AESA's which are mounted on the front leading edge flaps and on top of the tail fins. This device is used for targetting to be able to track LO/VLO stealth planes including the F-35 especially from behind, the upper side and from the lower sides which will perform just like the Nebo-M.
The F-35 is neither balanced survivability nor a true stealth 5th generation aircraft. The F-35 has no credible defensive jamming.
Those selling the idea that the F-35′s AESA radar as a defensive device against enemy terminal radar concerns aren’t believable. Power output limits, thermal concerns along with the limited field of view and in-band frequency limits make the idea of the F-35 radar as a defensive solution of little value. It is only useful on a marketing PowerPoint slides to the clueless. And, unlike the designers of the F-22, the F-35 will not be in possession of true stealth, high-speed and high altitude to help degrade enemy no-escape-zone firing solutions of weapons.
For more information of why the F-35 is a wrong aircraft etc etc.
You can research on Eric's website
Air Power Australia http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
Regards
@Another Peter
The main impact of F-35B not having armor/resilience is that it will not be usable for low altitude air support, strafing runs etc. Unlike, for example, the A-10.
There is no reasonable way to armor a fast jet against SAM hits anyway.
@ArmyAbrams Tanker
You are correct that F-35B is the closest existing/in development plane for a 1:1 AV-8B replacement.
But I would say that the base concept itself is outdated. It is not capable of surviving/suppressing modern SAMs/fighters yet costs too much (vs payload) for a bomb truck.
If we go with the idea that AF and Navy will handle the fighter side then what the Marines need is:
- a full stealth anti-ground jet with short takeoff and short/vertical landing. Like a Marine follow up to the F-117. A "first day"/"fast response" strike platform that can evade modern IADS/fighters.
and/or
- a no stealth high resilience plane (with integrated jammers) that trades speed for lift and can achieve short takeoff/landing by going slow. A bomb truck that can do close to the ground air support and stay in the area for a long time without refuelling.
Don't worry ArmyAbrams Tanker,
You are not alone in your belief. Unfortunately the fools here are so one-eyed in their hatred of the F-35 that they cannot fathom what is happening or required in the real world.
They also come up with ridiculous statements to defend their position such as "the F-35's fuselage is too thinned skinned" - sheez, give me a break!!!
Another Peter: You're comparing a SAM system that we know nothing about. Your making it sound like its a combat proven system. If stealth is so useless, then why would the Almighty Russian stealth killers put billions of dollars into stealth aircraft!!!! Seems to me that these anti stealth radars are not as useful as the Russians claim they are. Your're wasting your time with the exhaust argument, any jet that burns fuel with afterburners will leave a heat trail. No Pak Fa or J-20 will hide their heat. signatures!! Another stupid debate is that the F-35 can't take punishment from bullets. NO FIGHTERS ARE DESIGNED TO TAKE LARGE CALIBER HITS. F-35 ain't a fucken A-10 num nuts. You don't know the F-35s jamming capabilities for one reason, classified. Your a nerd who thinks they know the exact capabilities of an aircraft that's still in testing. Take a breath for a minute and see how the F-35 does in combat instead of living in a simulation.
The Russians for one are NOT just pouring millions into stealth aircraft. They are evolving a proven platform, and that evolution includes LO shaping and powerful EW capabilities. They are not putting stealth first, rather its just one more facet added to proven survivability strategies. Its a completely different approach. Their new SAMs are also an evolution of a proven platform to the best of my knowledge. Building on what works works for the Ruskies, and if you consider what they have been able to accomplish considering thier economy these last few decades, they have done the impossible given American assumptions. Just something to think about.
You might also want to think about the fact that the Russians probably know that there are plenty of Americans like you, overly commited to a futurist fantasy once called the revolution in military affairs, who will gladly use the Pak-FA to justify our current course. If the Russians thought, rightly or wrongly, that the Americans were bankrupting themselves by putting all of thier eggs in one basket, and that basket had a hole in it, why not encourage them? This same kind of thinking may apply to recent Chinese developments, although I think they may be looking for prestige via stealth, although they might realize that we wont be prioritizing anti stealth measures any time soon. Or they might be happy to keep fighter conbat going in our chosen direction, given thier booming electronics sector and theyre still weak engine industry.
Your right about one thing though, the F-35 is no A-10. Thanks for all but admitting that it shouldnt replace the A-10, and that any branch looking for CAS should look elsewhere. Bad guys have guns, and close air support means getting close to bad guys. Is 7.62x39 large enough for you? How about auto cannon hits other fighters have linped home with?
Wil Leach "close air support means getting close to bad guys" - WRONG!!!
Close Air Support is support of troops in close contact with the enemy. It has nothing to do with how close the aircraft is to the action. In fact, in Afghanistan, CAS has been successfully undertaken by strategic bombers!
The F-35 is perfectly capable of CAS.
The Russians have spent billions on a newly designed aircraft specifically to evade radar. Many systems they're using in the PAK FA are off the shelf items from the SU-35, other than a few electronics, its a new design to them. Obviously plan form alignment has been around for a while now, giving the russias an evolving platform thanks to the raptor. Russian S- series are more for export, they are very vulnerable to the F-35s DAS and EOTS system. Until I see these stealth killing missiles take out a stealth aircraft, they will only be just another ordinary missile defense. I think replacing the A-10 with the F-35 is a terrible idea. I say create a new aircraft around the gau-8.
Much like the F-35 is vulnerable to any IRST (East or West) created in the last 20 years. And, at least the F-22 offers huge performance to minimize some of the effects of threats.
The only reason to have STOVL capability is to operate off amphibious carriers.
In the real world, US Marines don't use Harriers on expeditionary or rough airfields. They stick to fixed airfields...The insurgent attack at Camp Bastion (last September), which destroyed 6 US Marine Harriers and damaged two others in Afghanistan; had two large fixed airfields that were capable to handling C-17 transports. One is 2569 yards long. The other is 3827 yards long. What's the point of having STOVL capability here?!
They're better off with a modern interpretation of the A-4 Skyhawk. (New design based on it). Replace the amphibious carrier with a small carrier (2 catapults with angled deck like the now-retired USS Midway (CV-41), but modified to suit US Marine requirements). Essentially, a self-contained force focusing on supporting the US Marine folks on the ground.
Why base a new design on A-4 Skyhawk? Because it was tough, agile, low cost in both acquiring and operating. Most of all, it was simple and easy to maintain! (Less time in maintenance and more time in the air!) ...The US Marines had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give up their Skyhawks in favour of the Harrier. (They skipped the A-7 Corsair II, while the US Navy adopted that light attack plane).
Regardless, just do away with STOVL completely!
Well,something is wrong here...If stealth does not work,then why the F-22?
If it is a performance issue,then why not the F-15?Unlike most claims it could have better performance than the F-22...
If stealth does work,then why not the F-35?
I have to say this:if VLO tech is outdated then aircraft like the F-22 are not needed.But i dout thats the case.Everybody is after VLO tech and everybody knows that IRST is very limited,in particular in bad weather...if anything,fighters like the SU-X or its son the PAK FA are vulnerable to IR detection than the Raptor or the JSF...
The raw performance of the F-22 design makes it useful, even if it wasn't a stealth aircraft.
To ArmyAbrams Tanker & Anonymous
You guys are based on belony statements in Lockheed Martin's, DoD and USMC personnels belief. Unfortunately the fools like you two here are so one-eyed on your own liking of the F-35 that you guys cannot fathom what will be happening or required in the real world.
You two also come up with ridiculous statements to defend your own position such as "the F-35 is a correct aircraft for air superiority/close air support/battlefield interdiction etc" - gees, give me a break!!!
I'm certainly not wasting my time with the exhaust argument, the F-35's exhuast burns more fuel with afterburner will leave a heat trail the most. No F-35 will hide their heat signatures!!
The F-35 is perfectly incapable of CAS. It's very lightly armed.
The GREAT debate is that the F-35 can't take punishment from bullets. If you think my argument is stupid, go and talk to Pierre Sprey or Winslow Wheeler to get a clear picture that the F-35 is incapable of performing close air support missions.
I reckon both of you guys are nerds who thinks the F-35 is the only aircraft that is suitable for the CAS requirements etc. Why don't you take a breath for a minute and research why the F-35 is illsuited to the Marine Corp etc.
I certainly do know about the F-35s classified jamming capabilities for one reason.
This is a logical fallacy, the argument being that if you don’t have access to classified data, simulation results will be ipso-facto incorrect. I had access to classified material at the highest level on the JSF, and I was asked to make an assessment of the aircraft, which I did in a highly classified document of which only two copies were produced. In addition, I've described the process whereby I compared the result of classified simulations with those produced by my colleagues and acquaintances in the defence industry, and I found no significant differences.
I reckon both of you people shouldn't be here if you folks don't like the criticisms about the F-35 can't perform anything. I suggest that both of you should be transfered to the wacky Australian Aviation website that are extremely clueless and come up with ridiculous agendas to make every outlie statements to defend their position that the F-35 is the only aircraft to fulfill any requirements.
BTW ArmyAbrams Tanker. I didn't say the F-35 ain't a A-10. Don't put your words into my mouth you idiot.
Post a Comment