Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters

The news seems to confirm opinions about the F-35 in recent discussions here, which was that it probably won't enjoy the superiority the F-16 and F-18 had when they were commissioned.

"THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department...Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear."

Ahhh, UK and Australia are crying foul over their dumb down F-35s. Who could blame them?

IMHO, the US should have gone for a navalised F-22 and less carriers. No F-18F, no F-35. In terms of aerodynamic performance (agility, dash speed), these aircraft are in my view a step back from the older F-18s and the F-14.

It's interesting to see that the new carriers are going to be simply a neven larger version of what is around today. It somehow reminds me of the German tanks in WW II getting ever heavier and more costly to produce.

Andrew said:

IMHO, the US should have gone for a navalised F-22 and less carriers. No F-18F, no F-35. In terms of aerodynamic performance (agility, dash speed), these aircraft are in my view a step back from the older F-18s and the F-14.

It's interesting to see that the new carriers are going to be simply a neven larger version of what is around today. It somehow reminds me of the German tanks in WW II getting ever heavier and more costly to produce.

Click to expand...

USN did have the A-12, the A-6's replacement, a fully stealth bomber.



Navalizing an airforce aircraft is a lot harder than doing it the other way. It involves more than just adding a tailhook to any aircraft. You have to add undercarriage strengthening, structural strengthening, anti-corrosive measures, etc, while ensuring the aircraft is not too heavy. Heavy aircraft will have "bring back" capability issues.

For example, the F-14 can carry 6 phoenix but its too heavy to land on a carrier with all 6 of them. So normally, between 2 to 4 are carried.
Popeye...your a navy ordinance guy. Shed some light on this.

Well, if they are only fifteen dollars, then you get what you pay for.

Personaly, I like the idea of the F-35 JSF being used as a VTOL, STOL interceptor, and not as a standard fighter/interceptor. I like the idea of a navalized carrier-borne F-22, but I imagine it might be dificult due to it's unorthodox design. The F-35 being of similar nature has an advantage in that it can be a VTOL/STOL (unless the design has somehow changed.)

Personaly, I would have prefered to stick to F-18 (or F-16, I know that only one of them has a navalized version) fighters, and possibly some carrier-borne F-35 VTOL/STOL short-range interceptors. The F-22 is a fine fighter, but I call to question the F-22's carrier capabilities. Less carriers isint a bad idea ether, considering that they are so darned expensive! But then again, more is better in some ways...Plus, we can definately be more intimidating that way. (Forgive my use of 'we', being american I have a very localized nature, which is a very bad habit.)

Andrew said:

IMHO, the US should have gone for a navalised F-22 and less carriers. No F-18F, no F-35. In terms of aerodynamic performance (agility, dash speed), these aircraft are in my view a step back from the older F-18s and the F-14.

It's interesting to see that the new carriers are going to be simply a neven larger version of what is around today. It somehow reminds me of the German tanks in WW II getting ever heavier and more costly to produce.

Click to expand...

It would have been nice to see Navy F-22s, no doubt, but as usual interservice rivalry killed any chance of that. The Navy was looking at developing it's own next gen fighter, the A-12. That got killed in budget cuts and the F-22 design had already been finalized for USAF requirments. The USN didn't seem too interested in pursuing a navalized version after that.

As for the next carriers, my understanding is that they will be operated by far fewer personell(2000 vs. 5000 on today's carriers)--so much more autonomous operation, thus lowering operating costs. Perhaps that at the cost of initial procurement cost.

As to F-18E/F and F-35 vs. F-14 and F-18C/D:
On overall manoeuverability I would rank them:
1)F-18C/D
2)F-18E/F
3)F-35
4)F-14

Dash speed, well, I think the F-18 C/D models are the worst of the bunch, and the F-35 could rival the F-14.

But overall, the older models probably have an edge in aerodynamic performance, like you said. However, I don't think the USN strategy of retiring older, maintenance intensive, non stealthy ac is bad. They are getting good replacements that offer higher survivablity and reduced operating costs.

US Navy aircraft

It's a shame the A-12 didn't make it.

The crucial question in my view is: what is going to replace the F-14? When I first read about the JSF project many years ago I read that it was meant to replace not only the F-18 and the F-16 but also the A-10, the USMC Harrier and the F-14. And indeed, even though the F-35 may not formally replace the F-14 de facto this seems to be the case. Or is the F-18F assuming the role the F-14 had before while the JSF is going to fulfill the task of the older F-18 versions? So a revamped lo-tier aircraft design, which the F-18F really is in aerodynamic terms, is going to step in for the F-14? Can somebody englighten me?

The USAF should have enough punch to do the job of hunting down tanks, artillery positions and the like. The navy does not need a bomb truck but a truly superior aircraft which enables a carrier strike group to deal independently with the most sophisticated defences and capable of defending it from serious threats from air and sea. The stealthy, super cruise capable F-22 appears much better suited for this than both the F-18F and the JSF.

What do you think?

with kind regards
Andrew

IDonT said:

Ahhh, UK and Australia are crying foul over their dumb down F-35s. Who could blame them?

Click to expand...

I'm confused here. I thought UK and Australia would be getting the full blown version of JSF. Especially UK, I haven't read anything that said the Brits won't be getting the full stealth version, but just that they are not getting the full ToT that they wanted. Either way, UK can at least play hardball with the Americans by talking about Rafale-M. What can the Australians do? Get more super hornets?

Re: US Navy aircraft

Andrew said:

It's a shame the A-12 didn't make it.

The crucial question in my view is: what is going to replace the F-14? When I first read about the JSF project many years ago I read that it was meant to replace not only the F-18 and the F-16 but also the A-10, the USMC Harrier and the F-14. And indeed, even though the F-35 may not formally replace the F-14 de facto this seems to be the case. Or is the F-18F assuming the role the F-14 had before while the JSF is going to fulfill the task of the older F-18 versions? So a revamped lo-tier aircraft design, which the F-18F really is in aerodynamic terms, is going to step in for the F-14? Can somebody englighten me?

The USAF should have enough punch to do the job of hunting down tanks, artillery positions and the like. The navy does not need a bomb truck but a truly superior aircraft which enables a carrier strike group to deal independently with the most sophisticated defences and capable of defending it from serious threats from air and sea. The stealthy, super cruise capable F-22 appears much better suited for this than both the F-18F and the JSF.

What do you think?

with kind regards
Andrew

Click to expand...

The F-18E/F replaces the F-14
F-35 C replaces the F-18C/D

The USN has no credible threats to its command of the seas. It is more powerful than the next 17 largest navies in the world. As a result, its posture has changed. Carriers provide the US the ability to bomb any place in the world without permission from a foreign govt, as in the case of the USAF. Because of this reality, bombs on target is a priority capability. The super bug, especially with its new radar, is no slouch in air to air combat either.

I'm confused here. I thought UK and Australia would be getting the full blown version of JSF. Especially UK, I haven't read anything that said the Brits won't be getting the full stealth version, but just that they are not getting the full ToT that they wanted. Either way, UK can at least play hardball with the Americans by talking about Rafale-M. What can the Australians do? Get more super hornets?

Click to expand...

It looks like Australia will definately get the watered not as stealthy version.

US just won't share tech secrets with UK involving stealth. Don't know whether their version will have the stealth capability of the US though.

"The F-18E/F replaces the F-14
F-35 C replaces the F-18C/D

The USN has no credible threats to its command of the seas. It is more powerful than the next 17 largest navies in the world. As a result, its posture has changed. Carriers provide the US the ability to bomb any place in the world without permission from a foreign govt, as in the case of the USAF. Because of this reality, bombs on target is a priority capability. The super bug, especially with its new radar, is no slouch in air to air combat either."

Thanks for this info.

It seems to me that the Navy is resting on its laurels. When these plans were conceived it was vastly superior, the former Soviet navy rotting away. However, the world is changing. In a regional scenario, a carrier strike group may well have to face difficult situations within the next 15 to 20 years.

The Su-30 design has space for a very capable radar and indeed, should such an appliance be installed at some time in the near future, the major advantag the F-35 enjoys today will have been eroded. The problem I see is that the Navy is going to have to stick to the F-18F and the F-35 for the next few decades. Meanwhile, China and others will acquire and develop new kind of aircraft. To be sure, the JSF's radar and electronics can be upgraded but the basic airframe will stay the same.

In the past, the Navy paid great attention to air dominance, today, in my eyes it seems to be slowly steering away from this. Given the fact that perhaps only relatively few F-22s are going to be bought and bearing in mind that the carriers are true "front line assets" which are sent into a critical area first, this might be a dangerous path it is heading down.

with kind regards
Andrew