Thank Bring it on…I’ll try finding those studies! (email is [email]h_philipp@fw-190.com[/email] BTW)
The JSF is probably the a/c I know less about so I guess a lot of the opinions I have expressed thusfar may be subject to change.
Regarding the F-35C…For one thing, I was puzzled that the Navy would opt for a single engined platform. Furthermore,I have not seeing all its HP configurations but I would imagine that a single engined aircraft, with that much wing area and loaded to the max won’t be the most maneuvarable fighter out there. The bigger problem is that the NAVY can’t make up for these deficiencies with an F/A-22, since they got that other, bigger, slower, and once more, strike optimized F/A-18.
I have to admit that I am basing most of assesment whilehaving China in the back of my mind. The SH/JSF combo may work well for the more imminent types of conflicts the US might fight, but further down the road, the only aircraft in the US arsenal to remain current and still dominant, will be the F/A-22.
I don’t know the F-35s relative RCS in comparison with say an F-16, but loaded with external stores, which is the most likely config, they’ll hardly be able to function as “penetrators” or first strike aircraft since they lack that degree of stealth. They’ll just be more survivable in engagements (which of course is also important). So, what will the capabilities of a carrier strike group really be in the future?Especially without B-2 CONUS support, or USAF expeditionary wings deploying in the area of operations.
Reggarding the F-35A. I think the USAF has to think of it as a gap filler, or post-air superiority striker. I think they should buy less and focus more on programs like the FB-22. The “workhorse” mentality is good, but its place is being relegated to a more specific phase of future conflicts. A strong, low observable, striking force, with adequate numbers can achieve much much more, and really help a/c like the F-35 find their true role.
Sign In
