You missed my point again.
The 35 is stealth, but for how long?

you miss my point

stealth is stealth

stealth will ALWAYS be harder to detect than non-stealth

There WILL be radars to track them from adequate distances.

if they can track the F-35 from 100km out, they can track the EF from 500km out

On the other hand EFs, Flankers, Gripens, AND F-22s still pose some very good flight characteristics much better then the F-16/F-35 class fighters used to have…

Gripens?!?

pray tell why the Gripen is better able to outfly SAMs than the F-16

even the other fighters, you think you’re going to outrun the SAM?

lololol

you talk about radar advances, what about speed and range and maneuverability advances in SAMs that make them impossible to outfly?

what then?

i’ll tell you what, you’ll want to stay undetected as long as possible

Ps I wish not to be misunderstood.
I do not consider the F-35 a bad aircraft. I am sure it will be a success. But as a bomb truck.

if the F-35 is only a bomb-truck, it is a failure

Why use F-35 for “first day of war-very dangerous hits”, and not UCAVs

If UCAV prove themselves reliable, they would pose a better solution.

UCAVs are great, but you can never completely rely on them

they have one huge weakness that can never be overcome: they require a comm link

this causes 2 problems:
1. makes them more detectable
2. makes them vulnerable

vulnerabilities include softkill (jamming) and hardkill (destroy comm satellite)

you will always need manned planes unless you want fully autonomous AI . . .

If a customer asks from me to write a computer program that proves that Meril Strip is more beutiful than Sharlize Theron, I will find a way too do so.

the USAF has no reason to lie to themselves

if the F-35 is no better (or worse) than F-15/F-16 they could just cancel the entire program and save a boatload of money

Oh stealth again…
The answer to all questions, the pill to all sicknesses 🙂

funny how opponents always try to denigrate it while attempting to develop it themselves

if the Russians believed half the propaganda they put out about stealth, they wouldn’t be developing the PAK-FA

I ll tell you something about stealth.
In the world history of warfare, there have been MAJOR breakthroughs that were countered in sort time or MINOR breakthroughs that were countered in long time, but there has never been a MAJOR breakthrough that lasted LONG time.

yes any breakthrough can be matched, but the point is that it raises the bar

anything below the bar isn’t even in the game

for instance jets

Germany developed jets, then we developed jets and Russia developed jets

it would be like arguing against the F-86 in favor of the P-51 by saying ‘Well, the Russians will develop effective anti-jet technology’

So they develop the MiG-15, now the question is, would you rather face the MiG-15 in an F-86 or a P-51?

In the same way, would you rather face the super-duper radars of the future with the F-35 or the EF?

the EF isn’t even in the game

Back to MP703’s initial post…. I found this:-

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca2.htm

Look at Para 14.

14. Alternative options considered for FJCA were a “navalised” Typhoon, the US F18E/F, the French Rafale and an updated Harrier. JSF was the clear value for money winner, on both cost and capability grounds.

so, the F-35 is more capable than legacy planes, whoddathunk it?

What if (ok it is a “what if” question but a good one), stealth is here no more and everything else is not the same?

what if my aunt had balls?

then she’d be my uncle

But I have always seen the JSF as a stealthy strike platform, with a secondary ability to defend itself (or self escort itself to its strike target)

you’re wrong, it was designed with air dominance in mind from the very beginning

after all, it will be the main fighter on US carriers

do you think they would send out carriers without a competent A2A capability? (ok, bad example, just look at the SH :mad:)

I think it is absurd to think that the JSF / F-35 could be regarded as a true air superiority fighter that most credit it with – stealth or no stealth.

not absurd at all. USAF simulations show it to be 400% more effective than the best legacy fighters on the market today.

yes that includes the Sukhoi

The JSF / F-35 does not carry enough Aim-120’s and Aim-9X’s to warrant it the ability to take on and sustain itself in air-to-air combat with the likes of the ‘Flanker’ series of ‘true’ air superiority fighters

1. if number of missiles is the criteria for a successful fighter, we should start converting C-5s 😀

2. 4 internal isn’t bad, and if a country decides it’s important enough, they can fund the dual launcher to fit 6 internally

3. all the missiles in the world do you no good if you never see what hit you

I wonder where and how the JSF / F-35 program will fare with the U.S Recession??

probably better since it will be regarded as a jobs program and there will be howls of opposition to cutting jobs

I will not be convinced by the JSF / F-35 until it is in wide scale production and in service!

that’s nice

I for one am very very very worried about Australia purchasing the JSF / F-35 and putting its primary front line defence in to one basket – the JSF / F-35 basket!!

so what would you propose?

putting them all in the Sukhoi basket? the EF basket?

if your concern is truly about ‘all in one basket’ then you should be supporting a split buy like 33 F-35, 33 EF and 33 Sukhoi

By a grave planning error the generator was too weak
. . .
Just one from many mishaps related to that program.

oh dear, the testing program found a bug, let’s cancel the entire project :rolleyes:

so far the F-35 hasn’t experienced anything near as severe as the F-14 program (plane lost on first flight) or the F-22 program (plane crashed and burned)

maybe a joint purchase of F-22 and F-35, but give us F-22 for export now

sorry, can’t have it, not yours :p

It’s not designed to be an air superiority fighter, now is it?

yes, yes it is

there’s not much incentive for the customer to negotiate the best price.

there is, because money that isn’t spent on the F-35 can be spent on other goodies

it’s like if you get a $100 gift certificate to amazon. Do you not care about prices or do you try to get as much value out of that $100 as possible?

> they all do start with up to 40% overweight

reference for that?

basically the article is saying the cost and capabilities of the F-35 is IRRELEVANT

Britain is in a hole and is REQUIRED to buy 232 EFs

they also HAVE to have something to fly off the CVF (where something = approx 70 to 138 planes) or their heads will roll

they don’t want 232 EFs for the RAF, BUT since they have to buy them anyways, what if they converted some of the 232 to navalized versions?

here’s the math they are looking at

case 1: 232 EFs + 70 to 138 carrier planes (F-35/F-18/Rafale take your pick)
302 to 370 total planes

case 2: 232 EFs + cost of navalizing EF + cost of adding catapults
232 total planes

while case 2 is undoubtedly more expensive PER PLANE, it probably has a lower TOTAL COST, which is all they really care about