I think the answer is no. What happens if the fleet is grounded due to a technical fault, as the case with the F-15s recently?

The simple fact is the F-35B could not perform the interception role as well as a Typhoon. It’s CAP time would be too short, in addition to it’s vertical acceleration time, which again would be too slow compared to the Typhoon.

The F-35B can not replace the GR4 either, due to range and weapon load.

Then again the Typhoon, could not perform all roles of the F-35B and GR4, for example – it does not have stealth, or the ability to operate from ships.

I think the future will be Typhoons and F-35Bs – they will be proably replace all frontline combat aircraft in the RAF, and FAA aircraft.

I would imagine though the Tornado will recieve a major upgrade in the near future, to extend it’s service life until the mid 2020s, possible upgrades will probably be various pods, advanced cockpit displays, intergration of AMRAAM for self protection with helmet mounted sight, JDAM maybe, improved data links, etc etc, but who knows what the idiots in the MOD will come up with.

What they really need is two squadrons of F-22s with RR engines, along with 4 squadrons of F-35Cs, two for the navy, two for the RAF – and ditch all the anglo-european 3rd and 4th gen crap 🙂

Get a couple of B-2s also and ‘resume long range bomber flights’ over Russia.

Why bother with Europe? When USA could give us everything we need?

Ahhh but the steam driven cockpit of the early Su27 is not a happy place to be, any pilot operating an early Su27 is not very situationally aware. This is OK when you consider the Russians heavily relied on GCI but I would argue that looking aside from pure flight performance the Super Hornet cockpit is the place I would much rather be and fight from.

Operating in a link16 environment with other platforms in combination with a well designed cockpit mmi, helmet mounted sight, AMRAAM and AIM9x the Super Hornet is certainly not a foe I would take lightly.

True, the CGI system for the Su-27 and MIG-31. Thoses planes are pretty much useless without it aren’t they?

Having said that, I would still gulp after being told to engage a Flanker, from any generation, if I was sitting in a SuperHornet – or in anything else for that matter.

A dial can’t crash.

How can the Raptor be obsolete?

Of course the software/hardware on the F-35 will be more advanced – it was developed a 10 years later.

That doesn’t mean it can perform it’s roles anybetter.

Look at the Su-27 – anaolgue fly-by-wire and a ‘steam age’ cockpit. It can still outperform a ‘digital’ SuperHornet for example.

In reality, if they cancel the Harrier, the replacement now, will obviously be the Tornado – with Brimstone, Maverick, Mauser, KFF and PGMs – for the RAF anyhow at least (Tornados to go to A-Stan, Brimstone entering service). Don’t forget the Typhoon with KFF and PGMs, and even the Tornado F3s train for CAS using the Mauser cannon these days!

You can use anything anyhow for a ‘show of force’.

As for the Navy, they don’t really do a lot anyhow, other than visit the carriers twice a year I think.

If you ask me JFH was just another MOD **** up as far as the £s go.

On this, I’ve wondered for some time, whether it would be worthwhile for a company to buy the rights to a classic airframe, like the Hunter, or A-4 and produce newbuild examples.

The emphasis being on delivering a proven, mature airframe, that’s relatively easy to maintain.

Would the potential market be too small to justify something along these lines?

I don’t think you could rebuild an aircraft like the A-4 or Hunter – it would be more cost effective to simply buy an aircraft like a Hawk – an aircraft from an already runnung production line.

Isn’t the PAK-FA supposed to have a ‘trainable’ gun?