Sorry, but this reasoning of yours is becoming desperate. To say that the doctrine must be right because US are pushing it is a moot point – you got no patent on right decisions and if you do much, you also do mistakes.
I’m not from US I’m European. But one cannot recognize that in military matters other countries are juniors.
And buying the F-35 is a mistake, IMHO. Maybe not for a country which has enormous supporting structure of force multipliers, AWACS, jammers, ECM or F-22 cover but definitely a mistake for a country which places its bets on the F-35 as a mainstay of their future fleet because it can’t do much on its own.
Most of the countries that will buy F 35 are NATO, so they will benfit form all the back-up systems you mentioned.
In my opinion, the F-35 should have been a different concept – carefully shaped for frontal aspect RCS but otherwise fast, sleek and agile. Most likely twin engined, capable of flying around at M1.6+ supercruise, with weapon bay large enough to accomodate two-four 300+nm stand-off weapons. Stealth features reduced to optimum cost/performance ratio. Forget serrated edges on every inch if they increase the airframe cost two-fold and shrink your fleet to half due to budget constraints. Frontal RCS is extremely important, but then comes performance and only after that we can speak about rear or lateral aspect RCS reduction.
In your opinion, maybe, not in US. They fought 4 wars in the last decades, and have intel about the real capabilities of potential foes (Russia, China), So, again, maybe they just know better.
If I look at the definition and compare it with the newly introduced designs and concepts, then I start to think that those Russians (T-50), Chinese (J-60?) and now even Koreans (KF-XX) aren’t that stupid, after all. They seem to got the same message somehow. And I am looking forward to their designs – I just hope they never appear over the Euro skies defended by F-35s.
I see that you believe that it’s easy to design/field a stealth A/C. It’s not.
Sign In
