The super hornet is clearly dead on the export market against the F-35A, whose cost is decreasing year after year. And the USN needs a really stealthy plane, so a domestic production is also very unlikely to continue ( unless something catastrophic happens, like it can’t land on the carrier ).

However, the super hornets being relatively new, it would be great if the USN could give them new features, like 360 degrees engagement capabilities with IR sensors like on the international variant. Perhaps 2 additionnal IRSTs on the top of the plane could complement the IRST in the centerline tank so that most angles can be covered. The IRSTs would give sufficiently accurate range informations for BVR shots, and could also provide near 360 degrees missile launch detection capabilities at long range.

A couple of observations:

The relentless banging-on about how far an F-16 can or can’t go on internal fuel is a sign of willful ignorance. The F-16 was designed from the ground up to take off almost always with 2 x 370 USG and drop them for air-to-air combat. Hillaker had been involved heavily with the B-58 and may have known something about the advantages of drop tanks. It would be equally stupid to compare the transonic acceleration and supersonic speed of a clean F-16 against that of an F-35 with external tanks retained.

On the infamous 630nm-radius F-16 chart and how the F-35 will go further &c: Note that the F-16 in that chart is carrying four AAMs (not two), big, nasty, draggy GBU-10s and an ALQ-184 pod. Its range with slicker L/JDAMs, internal EW and another 370 USG ventral will be measurably better. Also (for those of us who can’t see the obvious) the profile includes 50 nm at low alt, and nominal JSF profiles (A/C) are HMMH.

We also know, of course, that the F-35 gains little range with external fuel, most probably because of already high wing loading and because external tanks exacerbate nose-heaviness (and high trim drag) with full internal fuel. (And please save any rowlocks about body lift in cruise for the kiddie forums. Thks.)

In any event, the question should not be whether the F-35 matches the F-16’s range or payload. Given the design is a quarter-century more recent, the $55 billion in R&D and >50 per cent greater weight, it should outclass it completely.

That doesn’t take into account one important point that you probably avoided on purpose I guess. The F-16 has very efficient CFTs which increase the internal fuel by 50%.

The drag of the CFT is equivalent to 12% of the drag of the centerline tank:
http://defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htm

Why can’t people try to be objective on these forums?

Yes, the range advantage is not much. With larger loadout it’s not even there. But as said before, the Viper is two weight classes below the 35, it shouldn’t have any range advantage over the 35, in the first place.

You compare the F-16 with EFT with the F-35 without EFT. Compare them clean and you will see the difference.

Also stealth planes will tend to be significantly heavier because they carry all their fuel internally and the weapon bay also adds weight, plus probably the skin of the plane is heavier with the RAM etc… You can’t really compare a non stealth plane with a stealth plane in terms of empty weight.

The F-35’s EFT won’t change the range significantly. The problem is not fuel capacity, as the F-35 is already capable of carrying substantial amount onboard.. the problem is high drag, or high SFC.. or both.. The most effective solution for extending the range would be fuel tanks for use in the internal bays..

The internal bays are too small to carry a significant amount of fuel. Check the size of a 2000lbs JDAM compared to a fuel tank, you will see that its volume is much smaller.

Someone mentioned having two sensor turrets on UAV’s would be good so I bring you Watchkeeper currently flown by the British army http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_Watchkeeper_WK450

That’s exactly what I had in mind.

The arguement over what aurcraft is an interesting one. For most members they only have the choice of 1 aircraft which for some countries is F-16, Canada is F-18, France is Mirage 2000 or rafale and UK is tornado GR4. Typhoon is pretty useless as all it can carry is Paveway II or dumb bombs. In a few years it should get more weapon integration, hopefully all weapons available. Only Amerixa has the platform numbers available to allow them to pick from. UAV’s has to be a big part of the future for European airforces as this will give numbers required and the loiter range/time. I imagine the apaches that are being used by the U.S. will no doubt need to be based closer than the jets. For UK this is an area they could help in. HMS Ocean us out of refit, the westland Apaches are built marinised, they can fit over 12 on the boat as well as merlins and sea king awacs and hundreds of Royal Marines and some royal marine seaking commando and Lynx helicopters.
With the battle so close to Turkey maybe they might give basing rights soon. I think most consider putting aircraft in Iraq right now. Obviously you need the 100’s of support crew, base protection, re supply etc etc

Perhaps NATO could base its forces in Turkey, that would be more secure that putting them in Iraq.

Just to illustrate my point,the A-10 could be made almost invulnerable to MANPADS if the USAF would give it a good DIRCM system like this http://youtu.be/JziiMt3papI
Also a towed decoy and a good MWS,like many modern aircraft http://youtu.be/uwXcSrMl-gI
This is not something out of my head…A-10 pilots have been asking for this for years
Here you have a great read of a text by an F-16/A-10 pilot http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/sum03/ireton.html

I think a DIRCM pod would be a great idea if it is feasable. Many types of aircraft could carry it.

Perhaps this one could be modified into an external pod:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/guardian/Pages/default.aspx

The A-10 carries the ALE-50 now, it could be upgraded to the ALE-55.

This is not a wrong statement, however if I understand the IS way of fighting both in Syria and Iraq, they are not insurgents. They are almost fighting a tactical war.

In most cases they have approached villages and towns en masse and have laid siege to some from key positions firing artillery and heavy weapons to weaken the resistance.

They have even had tank battles with the Syrian army. This means that you do not necessarily need to pin point a truck with a high value Taliban in this case. You can pretty much level an entire hillside they use to shell a town with relative certainty that there are no other casualties (due to the nature of IS which pretty much guarantees they have killed anything else in their path or close).

A-10/Su-25s up high are not as effective. That is not what they were meant for. You can’t use them as CAS if you don’t have certainty that use of manpads is a calculated risk and not a surprise, which would require boots on the ground which the west doesn’t have at the moment.

According to the wiki article, the A-10 has a service ceiling of 45000′, this is well enough to launch from altitude. The A-10 carries the sniper pod, so it is as good as any other plane.

The difference is that the A-10 can be more effective to support ground troops at low altitude if necessary. And there is no threat of MANPADS now, so no problem at all getting low.

I find it hard to believe that IS tanks have not been already all taken out. They should be relatively easy targets to find, contrarily to smaller vehicles like pickups armed with heavy MGs.

Destroying their tanks would significantly degrade their ability to attack.

Concerning the reaper, what is the range of its electro-optical sensor?

I guess it would be around 25km, which means that the reaper can cover an area with a 25km radius. This is a large surface area, and I doubt that the operator can really observe it in detail. Perhaps it would be worth it to add another sensor to double the surveillence capability ( or even 4 ).

They would have to add another operator terminal for the second sensor, so the cost would increase by perhaps, what, 2 million for the second EOTS and terminal. Not much to almost double the surveillence capacity.

As opposed to sending over F-22s, F-15s, F-16s and the aircraft the F-35 could have been if it weren’t for the STOVL requirements?

Yes of course. Deploying very precious planes in the open on airfields around 250km from chinese territory is not such a good idea. They can be attacked by cruise or ballistic missiles.