imagine had they gone the boeing route. look how fast they handled the t-x

Supposedly the X-32 wasn’t generating enough thrust when in hover mode to the point where they stripped down the airframe to shed some pounds. The additional thrust was the big benefit of the lift fan approach.

Considering the amount of weight growth the F-35 saw I don’t think the “F-32B” would prove a success. The reason that method of STOVL works well for the Harrier is because that is a relatively simple aircraft in comparison. Smaller, no internal weapons bays, less avionics, no requirement for supersonic speeds, etc.

I’ve heard it claimed that in fly-offs and such the DoD tends to down select to a “high risk” and “low risk” option. In the case of the JSF tech demonstrators the X-35 was the higher risk entry with more unknowns while the X-32 was lower risk since that method of achieving STOVL was already used on the Harrier.

For some reason lift jets were viewed very negatively and as a result the McD design wasn’t selected for further development.

I know the shaft-driven lift fan was LM’s pet project and they put a lot of work into it but part of me wishes McD could have been allowed to redesign their aircraft around that configuration. Perhaps more competition at a later stage, after a method of STOVL had been decided upon, would have been a good choice.

Has there been any detailed mention of the F-35’s flight characteristics from those operating the jet at Red Flag? Similarities to the F/A-18?

I have a hard time believing Russia is considering this after how recently Russia and Turkey were enraged at each other. Plus the fear (justified or not) that this could give the rest of NATO access to their much-hyped S-400.

Based on the RAF and RN experience with the Harrier family I think they absolutely made the right choice. In an ideal world CATOBAR operations with the F-35C and some AEW aircraft would provide a more capable air wing but the UK armed forces currently don’t have the budget for all that would require. The F-35B will still provide excellent capabilities far beyond the Harrier IIs the Invincible class operated.

Why do I get the sense that those who criticize the F-35 for not being sent over to Syria to drop some JDAMs on on mud huts will criticize the F-35’s first deployment to bomb mud huts as an over-expensive publicity showing?

The F-14 had one sole advantage over the Hornets which was the AIM-54 for long range interception but that threat left in the middle 90s and still hasn’t re-emerged. In that time USN surface based defences have improved. The F-14 was in no way a better WVR aircraft than either Hornet and is debatable for long range interception over the SH. It was a difficult aircraft to maintain and had a high accident rate for a carrier aircraft.

I don’t think the threat has gone away entirely. Russia still maintains a sizable force of bombers including those same cruise missile armed Tu-22Ms which were such a threat back in the day. The F-14D at least was clearly better suited for interception over the F/A-18E or F/A-18F. Yet that final variant was only built in small numbers.

A lot of the maintenance and accident troubles can be attributed to the F-14A which was cursed with an inadequate engine, the newer F-14s were certainly much better in those regards. By no means was the Super Hornet ultimately a bad choice, but the new Super Tomcats had all of the right stuff to serve well into the future had the Navy gone that route instead.

Why do you think the USN would pick something different? The only thing that I can think of that they would want to change would be 2xF414 instead of an F135.

The Super Hornet and F-35C offer rather similar performance characteristics (range, payload, agility) with the biggest differences being in stealth and sensors. In many respects both are replacements for the same aircraft (the original F/A-18). Had the Navy the opportunity to pick their own aircraft I think they would have gone for something a bit different. Still multi-role but perhaps with significantly longer range or better high altitude high speed performance.

The A/F-X program prior to JSF was firstly an attack aircraft with a secondary fighter role but if the Navy could get a “retry” I wonder if those priorities would have been reversed. Consider the advances in Chinese airpower and elsewhere.

Ultimately the poor recent record of naval aviation procurement starting with the disastrous A-12 Avenger II almost certainly limited how much input the Navy would have in the JSF.