• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Aviation Week Grounds Top Critic of F-35 Project

i want to ask a question. wouldn't the vstol capability be a good thing for carrier duty?
my imagination says that would make landing easier for pilots on low visibility days. if i remember right (not sure) the harrier burned alot of fuel doing the vertical/hover thing, and i was told the new plane was better at it.

otherwise moist of the stuff you guys are talking about is over my head. like probably most civvies, i like the f-35 because it looks like a flying ferrari, and when i've seen them at air shows i see maneuvers no one else does.
 
tigisfat said:
I'm kinda wondering if the F-35 even has a place in the Navy with the superhornet already integrated flawlessly. It's kinda redundant. Does the F-35 really do anything that much beyond the superhornet? If anything, the Navy needs a serious interceptor/fleet AtoA protection aircraft like the F-22.

As for the CVTOL model, I understand that's it's award winning engineering, but isn't it a little too much and complicated? That looks to me like the single most complicated way of getting VTOL capabilities out of a fighter jet. Maybe the F-35 design would just be better off without a VTOL variant. It sounds good on paper, having three different versions of the 'same' jet, but the VTOL just seems contrived and what I call 'do it anyway' shoehorn engineering.

I can't offer any substance to either point, they're merely observations from the outside looking in.
Click to expand...

The Navy cancelled the A-12 and decided to go with the Super Hornet. It is a nice aircraft. But, it was merely evolutionary. The price the Navy paid for the decision is that they have zero stealth capabilities. That limitation will rear a very ugly head if the US has to go to war against an adversary with first rate IADS and the USAF unable to respond in the timeframe needed due to whatever condition could cause that to happen.

The Navy makes a big point of saying they have about "three acres of soveriegn American territory ready to go anwhere in the world." That's a good point to make. If I were USN then I'd make that argument also. But, if the enemy's IADS renders sorties into the littoral areas a suicide mission, and the missions cannot go until the USAF shows up with the stealth platforms, then the USN isn't providing the nation the full measure.

This is why the Navy is so rightly keen to get their carrier version of the F-35. They know well as I do that the Super Hornet is great for battles against nations like Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be an entirely different ballgame against a nation with the most modern IADS, especially if the USAF stealth platforms couldn't blow holes in the IADS for the Navy to fly through.

IADS are the far cheaper solution to defense, but the drawback is they are purely defensive systems. The United States has vastly more complex interests than can be serviced by purely defensive systems. Offense is a necessary component of US military policy. Therefore, we have to retain the airpower option as viable. There is a high price to pay for that.

Ultimately, however, the price for failing to do it dwarfs the price paid to do it. This hard reality must not be lost on the people.

Ken
 
cheezyflier said:
otherwise moist of the stuff you guys are talking about is over my head. like probably most civvies, i like the f-35 because it looks like a flying ferrari, and when i've seen them at air shows i see maneuvers no one else does.
Click to expand...

Where on earth have you seen F-35s perform shows with full maneuver profiles? Have I been missing out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top