It is probably ‘ready for PLAAF’ as will the F-35B be ready for USMC, in 2012. It’s all relative, true.

But if they can develop the WS-15 to be a viable engine, the performance on paper at least should be jaw-dropping.

Nope, the debate is over. Not only is every US fighter developed from now on going to to VLO, but the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Saab, French, etc are already talking VLO.

Nobody is talking about developing any fighters that do not pay some very serious attention to it’s RCS.

Fair enough. After review of your previous comment, I will qualify my reply such that by 2025-2028, USN should indeed own certain ‘VLO aspects’ of the F-35C; but what is debatable (as stated above), is whether the F-35C needs to be this airframe.

Perhaps 2018 would include taking delivery of a truly VLO platform, such as an entry-level block 1 N-UCAS. By about 2025 said ‘joint service USAF/USN’ strategy could be followed by accepting a more relevant and capable 2-seat, twin engine 5.5 gen based on latest Off The Shelf components, design attributes and even previous concepts to conserve excessive R&D?

Until then; USN can evolve, innovate and procure asymmetrical stopgaps. imho.

djcross –

I hear ya, but…

Procure instead a Hi-LO mixed-Air Force of sufficient F-22 (140+ blk 35), EF Typhoon (and or NG Gripen), future UCAV and the UAV glide bomb per Obligatory’s post and you don’t need F-35. Plus you’ll have just saved yourself $100b in combined procurement and lifecycle costs (LCC) and not nearly provoked the kind of arms race 4k-5k F-35 would potentially provoke.

WW –

Thanks for reply.

My main point is that USG needs to conduct a hard study, ASAP, as to what the breaking point is and how low the Program can actually go in procurement numbers, before it becomes unsustainable and then decide a bold, strategic recap plan based off that reality (e.g., can it go well below 1/2 procurement??). Just like with the oil spill: we need hard transparency and honesty – not things we want to hear only to make us feel better..

Respects-

What could indeed turn out to be one of F-35’s ironic downside marketing points, is it being hyped as a VLO deep striker and penetrating S-300 hunter killer. And we boast 4,000-5,000 of these puppies? Who are we going to strike, the Andromeda galaxy? Can we reverse-role this for a minute and contemplate how the West would perceive Kremlin calls for building even 400+ ‘deep-strike’ Su-34 penetrators? Or PLAAF requesting 400+ J-xx?

I know we have a global-synergistic industrial complex to keep employed and humming along, right?? But the raw marketing of F-35 alone needs a makeover imho, in addition to a reduced-buy affordability-restructuring, if the program is to have any realistic chance of being sustainable past LRIP.

Maybe start by mutually cooling down the rhetoric re: killing various foreign integrated air defenses and going down town?

Perhaps consider reconfiguring F-35’s perception as more of a ‘Modern Reduced Observable’ (MRO, as opposed to VLO) Joint Defence Fighter (JDF)?

Other than that, the NG would certainly appear to be a very capable (as stand-alone, or part of Lo-mix) interim light-defense-fighter for anyone – even US ANG!??

Not crazy at all! I like creative concepts like this, if they will likely offer better long-term strategic results at little extra costs (but with more insurance, etc). 😀

F 7 is already training base for international Gripen customer crews? So I guess even if Norway decided on 100% Gripen fleet originally, maybe Sweden could veto training RNoAF if they disagreed with a Norwegian policy? I doubt it. I think that would be included under the so-called ‘offset’ benefit, which is gained in a hypothetical contract deal. (e.g., it could smartly be negotiated in the front-end MOU, before signing papers).

Anyway the merit of the idea doesn’t sound irrational at all, imho – as you’ve mentioned some good examples for including expanded strategic thinking and long-term doctrine flexibility.

I’d just think the order numbers you presented might be slightly high though. Perhaps 35x F-35 and 20x NG for a total of 55 a/c?

Here’s one more crazy idea for you, conceived just now in pondering this plan of yours. Since it’s not practical or sustainable to really have a small (cute-sized) force structure (e.g. 20 F-35s or something), as an AF would need some training conversion units, test a/c, attrition, and the actual operational fighter squadron! How about 3-4 potential regional operators collaborate and negotiate a joint procured and joint operated Training Conversion Unit? Maybe each contributing AF of such a plan could buy 3-4 jets for the unit (not sufficient if a unique training force). But multiply by 4 operators and viola, each AF equally shares 16 jets for Training! Then, you could buy 25-30 jets as the national operational unit, thus saving euros for your NG complement? Every 4 yrs or so, maybe the joint training unit could relocate to a different country (to share any advantage of having a home-based mult-force training infrastructure)?

Spud –

Good point on Partners (vs FMS), via their MOU, as not likely being able to swap out components, including DIRCM. But again, was just emphasizing that the actual DIRCM’s supplier is probably not yet selected – i.e. various candidate systems are probably still under development.

As far as above JPO graphics are concerned, they will unfortunately need to be re-graphed. Prior JPO estimates are now certified defunct (out the window) – as has been widely anticpated by critics… as Ashton Carter, actual US services and CAPE are the latest battle grounds for revising and better defining the updated estimates.

But there will not be a mature block IV system delivered to anyone, before SDD is completed.. Things schedule wise have also been reshuffled and will be substantially restructured further.

Accordingly, it is opinion that certain anticipated notional block V upgrades (such as DIRCM and possibly even the 6x internal AMRAAM) will have possible integration accelerated now, into a notional but delayed block IV. (or at least should, in order to maintain competitive). Waiting until 2020 +/- to have those notional capabilities operating in block V IOC status just doesn’t seem competitive imho.

The ‘OZ’ DIRCM reportedly is a ‘candidate’ for DIRCM system equipment, yes. It’s still being developed and needs to earn the top slot. But others are being independently developed, perhaps implementing different techniques or technologies and could be integrated as well. It will be a customer choice of course (for at least partners).

But unless there is updated info, the reported expected timeline for this system’s integration is corresponding to the notional block V upgrade (which would be squadron level IOC, who knows when!!).

I would hope for any F-35 customers that at least block IV (IOC who knows when now) could be modified to adapt a DIRCM.

Of course before this point in date, other tactical aircraft will be deployed with various DIRCM sets. No one airframe will hold monopoly here. Air combat via BVR (employing passive systems and modern counter measures) along with WVR (employing such new self-protection systems) will simply create insane radical changes in tactical doctrine and scenarios. Advanced missile pK performance will likely be proportionally countered by advanced missile warning, defenses and counter measures, thus potentially generating only marginal net gains in overall missile pK. Go figure, guns/training could likely maintain their relevance well into 5th gen ops afterall. Crazy.

Which one is more suitable for the air to ground role??
I think the SU is more suitable for global missions, which include multiple air refuellings, and hence the comfort on board ( pressurized cabin, toilet, seats that can be reclined to a flat bed ) and the roughness, for which russians aircraft are known, it might be a competitor for upcoming F 15 sale campaigns….
DOes anyone know anything about the avionics in this aircraft??
And a MTOW exceeding 44 tons….wow……

Video of the SU 34!

One has to be impressed with the Su34s aerodynamics, crew-offerings and claimed performance, no question. Potentially a very potent and strategic platform on which to keep an eye. Without doubt the Su-34 is a modern deep-strike penetrator and overall multi-role capable with potential for many missions.

Here’s a neat little ‘cartoon’ tribute video btw, specially made for this a/c using an old flight sim 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n81d4Nw31SM

Perhaps they would fast become the J-16 or something if one air force in particular got some initial imports, lol 🙂

But let’s indeed hope there won’t be any future combat strike competition between these two babies anywhere, eh! Respects –