Under FDR, he emphasized a large fleet of escort carriers, built in larger numbers.

No, emphasis was on large numbers of large fleet carriers: 32 Essex class authorized from Jun 1940 to Sep 1942 (but only 24 were ever completed) followed by 6 Midway class (but only 3 were ever completed) made up THE striking force of the USN. The escort carriers were built to fill in secondary operations to free up the fleet cariiers for primary fleet operations. For example having escort carriers cover the landing forces allowed the fleet carriers to continue striking more distant (from the landings themselves) enemy positions & continue to search for enemy fleets.

Imagine something like a C-8 or whatever being fired from the Iranian shore to hit a DDG – 1000 , how much damage would it do? Compare that damage repair to the cost of the missile fired by the Iranians. Does it make sense?

Would the USN be able to replace the DDG 1000 quickly? Could it even afford to?

The question is can the USN afford to put higher cost high technology as they can fit in a lower number of vehicles against enemies that are looking at cheaper ways to take out those ships?

Can Iran afford to fire enough anti-ship missiles at a DDG-1000 in order to achieve even one hit?

No, it’s a Canard, or where is the LERX in the light and the Canard is above the wing leading edge!
On this a little bit greater picture can we see better that this F-XX has Carnards but no LERX and no LEVCON.

No, its a LERX. If you look closely you can see the edge of the LERX all the way though the shadow (as well as what appears to be lettering or other kind of skin darkening). Even MSphere who once incorrectly thought as you do now sees it. The image kiwinopal posted it is even more evident from both aspects.

Actually, no. Check the link in the first post – or here it is for your convenience: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-plots-return-to-next-ge.html

Two different airplanes, the second looks like the earlier proposal.

Wrong. If you botherd to read the article…program was renamed (not cancelled) & this event is Boeing showing TWO concepts for the program – one being the same one that was seen last year with the intakes on the lower side of the aircraft & another with the intakes on the upper side of the aircraft). In fact MANY of the news items are even using the same artist renderings as they used last year when it was 1st introduced.

***

Matt: The needs of Naval Aviation will outlast Mr. Gates. Not that I think he is wrong about developing expensive weapons for the theoretical next war when we are currently fighting an asymmetrical conflict where the Air Force’s top fighter is useless. But I digress.

He is wrong. We have been doing exceptionally well in the current conflict with our ‘cold war forces’. In fact it was utilizing utility HMMWV’s to ‘police’ Iraq when we should have been using V-150s (along with a policy of fighting not to lose rather than fighting to win) which has been the biggest source of what low casualties we have had. This BS policy of sacrificing future capability to do just a little bit better than we are already doing today could come back to bite us in a BIG way.

The Navy would do fine with procuring more F/A-18E/F/G’s to replace aging legacy Hornets and serve as an interim aircraft until the UCAV-N / NGAD combo comes along in 10-15 years.

You don’t know that. Something BAD could happen before 2030 (the earliest you could expect significant numbers of UCAS &/or NGAD in service) that would prove the F/A-18E/F to be inadequite.

You are correct: the Navy held their nose and went along with the F/A-18E/F/G – F-35C combo, with the understanding that they would get to develop an F/A-XX down the line. The F/A-XX was killed off, leaving the Navy with the prospect of having a single engined / single crew aircraft as a primary naval strike aircraft. Not a particularly survivable combination even with stealth technologies.

The Navy was told to take the F/A-18E/F or get nothing at all but has been VERY involved in the F-35 program. If Congress were to have allowed the funds for the USN to have developed its own dedicated F/A-18C/D replacement without having to be concerned with joint/commonality of the F-35 about the only major change would be that the USN would have preferred two engines (even at higher cost) but contrary to what the naysayers would have you believe the USN’s F-35C requirements were not otherwise altered to a significant degree from its previous F/A-18C/D replacement program.

Boeing 6. Generation stealth, no TVC, no Tail and this all witout Lerx but with Canard.
Boeing need Kiwiopa urgent as constructer.:diablo:

Without canard but with LERX.

Just a reminder that this concept has been ‘out in the public’ for a year now.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90519

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0b718474-965c-46b6-802d-4e6c642d4f0e&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

they may know more (it would be strange, to say the least if they didn’t), but the fact remains: putting into service a design that hasn’t completed its test program is irresponsible at best.

Even designs that have undergone complete flight test programs sometimes are grounded because of a defect discovered in service (with a loss of several lives before it happens), so what can one expect from an aircraft that hasn’t finished its flight test? will the pilots hang some rabbit paw in the cockpit and hope their luck avoids them getting killed by some hidden defect?

And what makes you think all testing for BlocK II capability will not be completed when IOC is declared for the F-35B?

***

You should probably compare figures with the Rafale featuring the uprated engine. In any event, the thrust/weight of the F-35 is pretty poor in comparison to other current fighters, at least as far as SL wet thrust/loaded weight (under 1.0 for the A model). Even with 50% fuel the t/w is unimpressive (1.04). As is the wing loading (446 kg/m^2).

You should get your figures on the F-35 correct.

The empty weight of the F-35A is 26,664 lbs with a internal fuel cpacity of 18,307 lbs (that is enough fuel for a combat radius that ‘comparable’ 4th/4.5 generation fighter require two external tanks to to get anywhere near).

The F135 has a thrust rating of 28,000 lbs dry/military & 43,000 lbs wet/afterburner.

In order to have a T/W ratio of 1.04 with 50% fuel (9,154 lbs is still still a lot of fuel) a F-35A would have to be carrying 8,902 lbs of weapons! Take any ‘comparable’ 4th/4.5 generation fighter load it up with 8,902 lbs of weapons (four ‘2000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM = 8,730 lbs; four ‘2000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM + two AIM-9X = 9,106 lbs) & enough fuel to fly as far as an F-35A can with 9,154 lbs of fuel & it’s T/W ratio isn’t going to be ‘impressive’. A F-35A [26,664 lbs] with 50% fuel [9,154 lbs] + four AMRAAM [335 lbs each] + two AIM-9X [188 lbs each] has a T/W ratio of 1.15 at take-off. A F-35 with two ‘2,000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM + 11,636 lbs (63.6% max) of fuel has a T/W ratio of 1.0 at take-off…

And of course wing loading as a measure of a fighter’s maneuverability is complete nonsense. Just take a look at the respective wing loadings of the F-16A & the Mirage 2000 (noting that their maneuverability is quite close with one having the advantage at some speeds/altitudes & the other at some speeds/altitudes). Not to mention the fact that modern fighters obtain a quite significant amount of lift from things other than their wings.

Even the RAND Corporation was scathing in its criticism of the F-35’s performance.

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/index.html

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

However, these things don’t simply boil down to comparing a few numbers- numbers at altitude and various fuel states and weapon states would need to be compared.

And yet you & those like you (even ignorantly &/or deliberately using inaccurate &/or misleading numbers) want everyone to believe that the F-35 is a dog.

I’ve heard that, in the subsonic region, the aircraft accelerates similarly to a clean F-16 Block 60 and feels like an F-22 (they share the same FCS). The goal of the program was to match performance of the F-16 Block 60. However, the Rafale is generally considered more maneuverable than the F-16 Block 60 and possessing both greater instantaneous and sustained turn rates.

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.

At this point in time you can find very positive and very negative viewpoints on the F-35, both with numerical data to back it up.

Except for the negative viewpoints ‘data’ is made up, incorrect or at best misleading.

So go on spinning all you want, the reality is that flight performance of the F-35 is quite good (nobody is claiming it to be the best – that would be the F-22 :)).

***

.. unless you got an explanation of how they maintain it cold….

Not cold but comparatively cool…

Like the F-22, the F-35 (among other things) circulates fuel along the leading edges & other key ‘hot spots’ on the airframe to absorb some heat (they use fuel to cool the electronics & such as well as opposed to air like previous aircraft) thus reducing & ‘masking’ thier IR signature. Their design also ‘shields’/masks their exhaust from many aspects.