JoeinTXThe current buzword is “AFFORDABLE STEALTH” and the F-35 aswell as UAV/UCAV designs (all over the world) are working to acheiving just that. This approach is the most lucrative for serious players to pursue and we’ll see it being incorporated even further . Also Stealth has expanded and will do further in the overall scheme of things rather then just RCS reduction and IR supression to other areas as mission expansion etc etc. The next big thing may not be a stealth design that is significantly lowered RCS but just might be revoulutionary in its application,maintainance and longivity.
I think this is the best post in the thread.
“Stealth” is a term that has been misused and *******ized to the point of nonsense. Never was low-observability meant to render an object invisible or invulnerable. Rather, it was applied simply to reduce it’s detectability and the time the opponent had to react. Accordingly, opponents learned ways to defeat this via sound, heat, etc.
No physical object made of any material known to man moving through our atmosphere at any detectable speed is “invisible.” Its physical impact on the molecules around it is imminently detectable in relation to the technology used to create it.
The F-117 looks cool and all, but it is a 1970’s take on evading basic radar waves. In 1982, it was one Hell of an achievement. Today, it ain’t quite so much…..
JoeinTXIt’s sounding less and less likely the more time goes by. It’s suppose to be an “interim” bomber to get us by until we get the “real” bomber in ~2037 but feature creep is already happening. According to the article variable-sweep and supersonic dash is being considered, stealth is manditory, and they’d like it to be self-defending. And they thought the B-2 was expensive. This thing is going to fall on it’s face hard if they don’t keep the wish list reasonable. After all it’s just suppose to be a interim bomber that would work alongside the B-52, B-1, and B-2. (BTW when was the last time the US had FOUR heavy bombers in service at once?)
I can’t agree more. I’m baffled at the planning and thinking behind the “2018” and “2037” bomber ideas. The -37 bomber is the one requiring truly advanced technology…….heck, by then we may be dealing with entirely different needs. The -18 plane is a near-term, cheap, off-the-shelf type of program using existing capabilities. I was no big fan of the FB-22, but when the idea of two types began to circulate, it would be the logical near-term application while future needs are given time to mature.
The B-52, B-1 and B-2 will eventually be phased out. Building the 2018 bomber and later on the 2035 bomber, the USAF will at least have 2 bomber platforms to rely on in the future, a sort of Hi-Lo mix. That might be a factor in their decision.
I agree. I envision a sort of FB-111/B-52 team for the early 21st century. An FB-22 “like” aircraft in 2018 to the tune of 150 or so which can take some pressure of the current fleet followed by 50-100 true long-range platforms in 2037 is extremely feasible and sensible.
Let’s only hope that some common sense can weave its way through this process.
JoeinTXWell, it is more than conceivable that they are fake.
No way the USAF would allow such a secretive aircraft to operate in daylight and no way this clear a picture could be taken around the Groom Lake pattern short of an extraordinarily telescopic (and equally expensive) lense.
They kept a subsonic, short-range F-117 secret for over 10 years. A hypersonic global ranging airplane should be able to kept quiet for at least that long if not double the time.
JoeinTXMM2000, what is your source for these pictures?
Admittedly, some look authentic as long-range pics…..but some look a little “Photoshop”-ish.
As well, these pics look too much like the Sweetman renderings. Either he was dead-on or they are fakes influenced by his depictions.
JoeinTXLate-model F-15s would be ideal for Taiwan, but political reasons do largely prevent it.
More F-16s provide a numerical (as well as quality) hedge against large numbers of older PRC types. Advanced Chi-Com aircraft will be marginally superior to RoCAF aircraft, but……….how many?….when?….how?….in what time?….etc.
JoeinTXI like the Euro- and the Rafale isn’t a slouch, but what bugs me about each are the tremendously long development times.
The basic layout and design requirements for each were known over 20 years ago yet only recently are we seeing IOC or initial deliviries for each.
The Rafale has certainly won the time to service bet, but it’s been no racehorse. The Typhoon has damn near timed itself out-it’s a 1990 aircraft reaching service in 2006.
Both, sadly, will be that last new manned European combat aircraft to see flight over the next 50 years.
JoeinTXWe don’t have quite the low-level flying restrictions here in the U.S. that they in other places around the world, so we do get to see some low fly-bys.
T-38s fly routinely under 1000 feet over the ranch (out of Sheppard AFB) and have for decades. C-130s from both Dyess and JRB Ft. Worth practice low-flying in or area. The occasional F-18 or F-16 ventures out low and loud.
For a while several years ago, C-141s out of Altus AFB would venture this far south and surprise us at less than 1k feet in pairs or trios but no C-17s so far. In ’90 or ’91 a F-111 passed directly over the ranch-house at no more than 500 feet….we just happened to be outside otherwise we would have never seen it.
The greatest thing I ever saw was in the late 1980’s when a B-52 (then out of Carswell) made several low, slow turns well under 1000 feet over the place as I was plowing a field. I stopped and watched…how could you not?….it hung around for 5-10 minutes and then went east and I have no idea why it did this.
Others:
Saw one B-1 about 12 years ago at lower altitude, maybe 3-4000 ft. We saw four Tornados traveling east in the mid-90s alone. Occasional Ch-47. A pair of A-4Ms in the early 90’s low but fast headed east….had to be USMC reserve. And, F-22s would make slow turns over my complex heading into the factory/Robbins when I recently spent some time working in Georgia.
JoeinTXThe f-35 is not in the same size , weight , of the F-16 , it is bigger , heavier , has greatly superior range . people need to get out of the habbit of calling the F-35 a light fighter when it is clearly not . the F-16A , Gripen are light fighters whereas the F-35 is quite mid sized with a big fighter ROA ( equal to that of the much bigger F-22A
I didn’t call the F-35 a light fighter. No one with eyes and the ability to comprehend the world around them would because it’s certainly not.
I was comparing the aircraft it was intended to replace, their missions, and the missions the F-35 will be intended to perform. No where in there is a reference to size, only roles.
JoeinTXThe f-35 is not in the same size , weight , of the F-16 , it is bigger , heavier , has greatly superior range . people need to get out of the habbit of calling the F-35 a light fighter when it is clearly not . the F-16A , Gripen are light fighters whereas the F-35 is quite mid sized with a big fighter ROA ( equal to that of the much bigger F-22A
I didn’t call the F-35 a light fighter. No one with eyes and the ability to comprehend the world around them would because it’s certainly not.
I was comparing the aircraft it was intended to replace, their missions, and the missions the F-35 will be intended to perform. No where in their is a reference to size, only roles.
JoeinTXThe B-52 is old…..the newest airframes in service are 44 years old.
But, it was purpose designed as a military aircraft and built as such from the outset. Re-engining has been studied over and over, but each time the study results in a decision to keep the current donks because the supply of spare parts from graveyard -52s are plentiful and ultimately cheaper than new motors for the whole fleet even including fuel costs.
Modifying commercial aircraft is a tricky thing. They are designed for different flight profiles, stresses, needs, and operations. The “B747” mentioned above was strictly a stand-off cruise missile launcher flying at altitude utilizing slightly modified launching doors not inconsistent with an airliner. It was not a carpet bomber or a low-altitude penetrator. It, like most airliner proposals, is not a strategic bomber.
The best idea would be for a combination all-purpose bomber and tanker/transport airplane airframe designed from the outset for both and bought in volume.
The 777/787 are not these airplanes by any shot.
JoeinTXWell, here we go.
The F-35 was intended to replace the F-16/18….neither of which are “air-superiority” fighters even though some nations use them as such. What were the F-16/18 to begin with?
-The F-16 was a lightweight “day-fighter” with no intended interception capabilities and close air support.
-The F-18 was a fighter-bomber to replace the A-7 and support the F-14 in a secondary air-to-air role.
The F-35 definitely does have the ability to be that if asked to do so and do it better than 90% of the aircraft in the air. It will be equipped from the outset for max strike and anti-air roles……neither the Typhoon or Rafale are. It outranges both. It outcarries both. It is more advanced than both.
I am very eager to see it in service and make the competition blush.
JoeinTXYes, the Super Hornet now takes over as the primary fleet defense aircraft with the retirement of the F-14.
AESA plus advanced AMRAAM make it very capable. Is it slower and shorter ranged than the F-14? Yes.
But, AEGIS now plays a greater part in CBG defense and the SH can defeat any potential threat it may face. Remember, the Tomcat was intended to range far and counter massed AVMF bomber attacks launching nuclear anti-ship missiles the size of F-86s. A threat like this no longer exists.
The F-35 will assume the same role the Hornet A-C of today played as secondary aircraft and a tactical fighter-bomber.
JoeinTXFirst, the OV-1 was an earlier design (by nearly a decade) that was primarily conceived as an extended range observation aircraft for the U.S. Army. A true armed combat role was’t really contemplated in its initial design, it was more about range and visibility. The USAF and Marines showed some interest at the time, but opted out later on because it wasn’t really a priority for them as it was the Army. Thus, the OV-1 entered service in 1962 with the USA.
The OV-10 was more of a Marine driven initiative to develop a multi-purpose, light armed attack/observation plane in the mid-late ’60s after the experiences in Vietnam. The combat role was much more an emphasis with the OV-10 than it was the Mohawk.
It seems like a duplication of platforms, and it was in many ways, but the slight differences in concept and customer resulted in two different aircraft. Take a look at (in particular) the U.S. military during the 1950s and 1960s and you will see numerable examples of seemingly redundant types operated among the various services.
Look at the U.S. Navy in the late 1950s: F-4D Skyray, F-11 Tiger, FJ Fury, F-3H Demon, F-7U Cutlass, F-8U Crusader, F9F Cougar…….all essentially single-seat tatical fighters in various states of design, production, and service within the decade and an F-4H design on the way. Sheeees….what a seeming logistical and money wasting nightmare.
Or, the USAF in the early 1960s: F-86F, F-84F, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, and the F-110 (F-4) ready to enter service and a TFX taking shape. Seems a lot redundancy there as well.
JoeinTXThe chances of an F-35 cancellation are next to nil. Too much time, money, and effort has gone into developing a pretty darn good all-purpose replacement aircraft for all three branches.
I don’t know where the F-35 “hating” is coming from? This thing is going to fly farther with a greater weapon load than any current generation F-16/18/Harrier and do so with less chance of detection. This thing will have F-16/18 like maneuverability with much improved radar and aerial weapons.
I don’t get all the b!tchin’ here??? What, it’s not as “sexy” as an F-16? I don’t really care what it looks like when it is designed to provide performance and increase our overall capability.
USAF: ok that’s just too easy-more F-22As. Next.
No, that’s not so easy. We can’t buy enough F-22s to reasonably replace all of the F-16s, A-10s and older F-15 in the USAF/AFR/ANG. We need a volume airplane and this is it.
The Navy? They could buy more SHs to fill carrier decks if necessary. So far, the Super Hornet is under time and under budget, so, a follow order is the logical process should an F-35 cancellation occur……..which it most certainly will not.
USMC? There really isn’t another choice for them if they want to stay in the fixed-wing business. They could buy SH’s, but you can’t fly those from LHDs this is a big reason for the VSTOL F-35.
JoeinTXI agree 1000%, ELP.
While the concept is great, this aircraft is not. I see no more than 50% availability at any given time and manufacturing problems for the program’s life. At this unit price, it’s insane.
Again, voicing a little sanity, the S-92 or US-101 would have been serious upgrades over the current fleet while affordable and manageable.
The V-22 will be a hanger queen for the duration of its life and a poor waste of time and money….
Sign In
