specific? I’m talking about simply having the ability to decide on your own whether you want to go and do your business without having to ask for help/permission to do so.
On this topic, there was talk about only having select places around the world that would repair the F-35. Italy was supposed to be the only European centre of repair.
If stealth is expensive to obtain but then cheap to have, why is the F-35 still so expensive?
says who ? You ? How do you know? Who told you that this is or would have been the case? You are implying that the only way forward was a plane with similar costs to the F-35? Then you are being contradicted by the LM people who a few years back had completely different ideas of the cost and performance of the same plane you are defending now.
How can you quantify the cost of making a plane which would have fulfilled the F-16 role at a similar price point without ever having been part of such a procedure? I am not saying I can, but surely you cannot either. Such a competition never materialised so no one knows. Filling the same shoes doesn’t mean it would have to be like the F-16 physically or even come from the same lineage. It could have been a completely different design, meeting the same requirements. The F-16 and the MiG-29 came about trying to meet pretty much the same requirements, they don’t look alike do they?
You are forgetting that taking something from LO to VLO can mean the cost of tens of millions on the final price. However the benefits of going from LO to VLO may not be what is working to your best interests if you are trying to make a decent front line fighter.
and that is the point you are missing. The F-35 was NOT meant to be a front line fighter, even during the initial stages of design, the idea circulated with various degrees of veracity was that it would supplement the F-22 and enjoy a free reign after the F-22 has achieved air superiority that is not a front line fighter that you can take to a war of attrition, that is a plane for a very specific role. NO other country besides the US has the F-22, what are the rest to do ?
You are forgetting that stealth is a two edge sword, you enemy can’t see you so you see them first and you shoot. Fine by me matey, but what if they have stealth too? maybe not as good as yours but stealth non the less, what are you gonna do now? Every argument you have ever put forward about stealth now applies to them too.. and what if they are a bigger country than you and they could afford 48 of their slightly worst stealthy planes but you could only afford 24 of your super dupper wow F-35s .. they have you at 2-1 and you can’t do anything about it because you can’t see them and they can’t see you and you ended up having half as many planes as they do and they conduct twice as many sorties day as you do and they shoot down twice as many planes as you do from the conventional 4gen fleets.
Do you begin to see the problem now? In WWII, the russian tanks werent’ the best, certainly not better than the German ones.. but they were so god damn many that the german tanks run out of shells blowing them up and they were still coming.. Do you catch my drift ?
Jesus tap dancing Christ, not this **** again.
Jesus..sorry for mentioning it in the first place…
Oh man, I knew you were gonna say that.. .
I didn’t mean an F-16H or SE or anything other than that. I meant a plane that meets those requirements, a new plane, not a redesigned F-16, but a plane designed around realistic affordable goals.
Try to stay positive. For what it’s worth I was at BAE around 2000 and the same doubt was being cast on the Typhoon. Sometimes bloggers and journalists just don’t have anything else to write about.:D
What I find idiotic is putting forward arguments along the lines of “who would have thought a replacement for the F-16 would be lighter and cost less”!!!
What kind of reasoning is that? Do you understand the concept of operational requirements? Do you understand the concept of same weight class? Who ever mentioned a better plane than the F-16? The F-16 is today a pretty damn good plane, with very good systems as well and pretty hard nut to crack.
Perhaps the only thing needed would have been a plane that filled the F-16 shoes and was more survivable, perhaps incorporating LO and VLO characteristics. That thing would sell like a hot cake.
It didn’t have to be twin engine like the Rafale or the Typhoon, it didn’t need to have EOTAS, it didn’t need to have all digital cockpit nor a latest generation of helmet queuing system. Any off the shelf components would have worked fine. A different design other than that fat brick would have allowed for better flight characteristics and more importantly it would not have allowed the program to balloon to these proportions.
Single engine, LO (not even VLO) , a decent AESA, agile design and presto .. you have the new F-16.. what more does NATO need?
And why should NATO potential customers pay for the development phase of versions they are not going to use?
that is idiotic…
It must be a hell of a reduction in size because you need room for the launching rail and arm too.
What are the alternatives? Ignore stealth, build an easily detected fighter that manoeuvres and accelerates slightly better than legacy aircraft and then find that it can still be easily detected and shot down BVR. Get involved in a war of attrition, lose pilots, pay out to grieving widows, pay to train new pilots at short notice etc.
That is the point. There are no alternatives and a bunch of air forces are screwed, because even if the F-35 is as good as you think or even better than any other plane out there, its price forbids the numbers necessary to make an Air Force.
Ayah yes…
Which ones on the j-20?
From that second photo, I find it hard to imagine how a short range Missile fits in those conformal wing root bays.
If you’re not aware of the aerodynamic design shortcomings of the F-35, then I seriously suggest you do some research before being so vocal in your support (and so certain in your posts). Otherwise you’ll be wading into an engineering quagmire as you did over on the EF thread, recently.
A good place to start is the DOT&E 2012 report.
*
More than any of all these details, fundamentally the whole idea is flawed. Allied air forces needed and wanted a replacement to the F-16, a plane which by all accounts was outstanding for what it was. NATO expected a LO F-16 successor to roll of the lines and fill the ranks with a more survivable equally capable plane. That was all they needed. LM’s claims that less F-35s do the same job does not apply. There is simply no substitution for numbers when you have only one type of plane and mant jobs to fill, from protecting your navy to cas to air defence. A country like Greece or Spain will not be able to buy more than 12 to 24 planes when they got between 40 and 80 equivalent planes back in the 80’s. What kind of Air Force is that?
Iraqi, I don’t know. Syrian, surely not.
Back on track, I think the A-10 and Su-25 are the right planes to use, if the other side hasn’t got access to good manpads. If they do these planes are going to suffer.
This is a great illustration Falcon. The answer is always going to be the one you see first.
If the grouse is doing 50knts it may be easier to get a shot off and bring him down. But if you can’t see him against background foliage you can’t shoot. So, irrespective of whether it’s easier to hit him or not he is still a hard target.
Conversely the rc plane isn’t flying in the trees…it’s a good height above them where it’s engines are more efficient and it’s easier to control. It’s harder to hit with your shotgun, but, not impossible and lining up your shot is easier as you see the model quite a ways off.
Not sure I follow, foliage translates to what ? Clutter from the sea? If we are talking low RCS ASM’s there are not many in service right now (if any) that are VLO built.
Just thought about it, are you guys certain you are not confusing the theoretical claim that the AEGIS radars cannot be practically saturated with the actual ability of the actual missiles to hit other missiles? Those two are somewhat different.
I wonder if the duck could be used as a platform for a naval AWACS …..