Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, that's what the major issue has been. Prior attempts to design one plane for all three services haven't been real successful (I remember talk about trying to make the F16 into a carrier plane back 30 years ago. The talk really went nowhere because of the changes needed in the airframe). There have been unintentional successes, the F4 and A7 being two such.
I think it's noteworthy, though, that both the Phantom and the Corsair were originally designed as carrier aircraft, and later adapted for Air Force and Air National Guard use. It's a lot easier to take a plane that's designed to withstand carrier landings and teach it how to glide down onto a runway than it is to take a lighter-framed airplane and beef it up to land on a carrier without coming apart like a Tonka toy.
"Recently the Air Force as declared that the F-35 Strike Fighter is woefully incapable instances of close ariel combat losing with regularity to the F-16 that is just one of the aircraft it is slated to replace. Again the Air Force claims just like the F-4, such a capability is unnecessary in the future of ariel combat."
The future of aerial combat is airframes that don't sacrifice range, speed, and maneuverability keeping a pilot alive/conscious. The F-35 may or may not end up an historical success (it will likely participate in a handful of dogfights at most), but either way, the era of manned fighters is rapidly drawing to a close. Assuming that the F-35 is in service for at least 30 years, does anyone doubt that AI will have progressed to such a point that the Lightning's replacement will inevitably be a UAV? If a computer could defeat the world's best chess player two decades ago, then three decades hence, one will make short work of the world's best pilots.
The future of aerial combat is airframes that don't sacrifice range, speed, and maneuverability keeping a pilot alive/conscious. The F-35 may or may not end up an historical success (it will likely participate in a handful of dogfights at most), but either way, the era of manned fighters is rapidly drawing to a close. Assuming that the F-35 is in service for at least 30 years, does anyone doubt that AI will have progressed to such a point that the Lightning's replacement will inevitably be a UAV? If a computer could defeat the world's best chess player two decades ago, then three decades hence, one will make short work of the world's best pilots.
Despite the adances of uavs and such, pilots will no be replaced.
Back in the day, when the F-4 was entering the fleet, pilots had bumper stickers on their cars that said, "When you are out of F-8s you are out of fighters."
The future of aerial combat is airframes that don't sacrifice range, speed, and maneuverability keeping a pilot alive/conscious. The F-35 may or may not end up an historical success (it will likely participate in a handful of dogfights at most), but either way, the era of manned fighters is rapidly drawing to a close. Assuming that the F-35 is in service for at least 30 years, does anyone doubt that AI will have progressed to such a point that the Lightning's replacement will inevitably be a UAV? If a computer could defeat the world's best chess player two decades ago, then three decades hence, one will make short work of the world's best pilots.
Well that's all fine and good but right now right here we are spending a hell of a lot of money for an aircraft that doesn't appear to measure up to the current and cheaper aircraft based upon a rational that I find questionable. There were actual dogfights during Desert Storm between the F-15 and Iraqi fighters where long range missiles either failed or were competently avoided and ultimately the maneuverability F-15s allowed them to prevail. So the question remains.
Well that's all fine and good but right now right here we are spending a hell of a lot of money for an aircraft that doesn't appear to measure up to the current and cheaper aircraft based upon a rational that I find questionable. There were actual dogfights during Desert Storm between the F-15 and Iraqi fighters where long range missiles either failed or were competently avoided and ultimately the maneuverability F-15s allowed them to prevail. So the question remains.
What the detractors of the F-35 are missing (and I'm not defending it either, but am making a mission point) is that the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter. As a strike fighter it joins a legendary list including F-100, F-105, F-111 and F-117 as well as A-6 and A-7 aircraft. Not leaving out allies, don't forget the GR1 Tornado and the Jaguar. They are all strikers first, and are not known for their maneuverability. In our current inventory there's the F-15E. It's not a dogfighter, I have flown against them. A bomb-laden F-16 isn't going to turn and burn either. 5.5 G's max.
The idea behind a strike fighter is the ability to penetrate defended hostile territory and deliver a variety of ordnance on targets in order to either impose your nation's will on another or maybe even bomb them back to the Stone Age... I prefer the latter, but that's not PC. If you can do it without being detected, so much better, and if you can defend yourself as well, that's icing on the proverbial cake. It sucks when a couple of acquisition radars are watching you and as you get close to the target area a whole bunch of stuff opens up on you... ask me how I know. They don't see you, they can't engage you. That's the F-35's advantage, at least for now. Stealth is not 100% foolproof. To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, for every tactic or threat there is an equal and opposite countermeasure... or there will be soon. I have flown against the F-22, and let's just say it was totally unfair; you can't shoot what you can't see. The "canned" engagements referenced in the "War Is Boring" articles are within visual range, and give the advantage to the F-16... there is a huge likelihood that would never happen. Yes, a blind squirrel can find a nut in a snowbank every once in a while, just as an SU-30 could stumble upon an F-22 or F-35 and schwack it with an AA-11, but unobserved kills are few and far between with the massed sensors out there now.
The REAL threat to any aircraft is not the overstated and less likely WVR air-to-air engagement, or the BVR radar or IRSTS threat, but the surface-to-air threat. From advanced systems like the SA-21 (S-400) all the way down to an AK-47, there's a lot of stuff trying to shoot us down.
What the detractors of the F-35 are missing (and I'm not defending it either, but am making a mission point) is that the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter. As a strike fighter it joins a legendary list including F-100, F-105, F-111 and F-117 as well as A-6 and A-7 aircraft.
What the detractors of the F-35 are missing (and I'm not defending it either, but am making a mission point) is that the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter. As a strike fighter it joins a legendary list including F-100, F-105, F-111 and F-117 as well as A-6 and A-7 aircraft. Not leaving out allies, don't forget the GR1 Tornado and the Jaguar. They are all strikers first, and are not known for their maneuverability. In our current inventory there's the F-15E. It's not a dogfighter, I have flown against them. A bomb-laden F-16 isn't going to turn and burn either. 5.5 G's max.
The idea behind a strike fighter is the ability to penetrate defended hostile territory and deliver a variety of ordnance on targets in order to either impose your nation's will on another or maybe even bomb them back to the Stone Age... I prefer the latter, but that's not PC. If you can do it without being detected, so much better, and if you can defend yourself as well, that's icing on the proverbial cake. It sucks when a couple of acquisition radars are watching you and as you get close to the target area a whole bunch of stuff opens up on you... ask me how I know. They don't see you, they can't engage you. That's the F-35's advantage, at least for now. Stealth is not 100% foolproof. To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, for every tactic or threat there is an equal and opposite countermeasure... or there will be soon. I have flown against the F-22, and let's just say it was totally unfair; you can't shoot what you can't see. The "canned" engagements referenced in the "War Is Boring" articles are within visual range, and give the advantage to the F-16... there is a huge likelihood that would never happen. Yes, a blind squirrel can find a nut in a snowbank every once in a while, just as an SU-30 could stumble upon an F-22 or F-35 and schwack it with an AA-11, but unobserved kills are few and far between with the massed sensors out there now.
The REAL threat to any aircraft is not the overstated and less likely WVR air-to-air engagement, or the BVR radar or IRSTS threat, but the surface-to-air threat. From advanced systems like the SA-21 (S-400) all the way down to an AK-47, there's a lot of stuff trying to shoot us down.
Your input on this is greatly appreciated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
