F-35 JSF comparative capability

**dave angel** · 04 Jul 05,, 15:13

recent newspaper reports indicate that some customers for the JSF are becoming uneasy over claims that the export versions of the JSF are rather less 'stealthy' than the US versions and that the customers are therefore buying a new 'F-16' that will be without its main selling point - its low-observability.

is this true?

furthermore, in an age of submarine launched cruise missiles, ECM and 'proper' stealth aircraft like the B-2 and F/A-22, is there a place for a 'half-stealth' aircraft like the JSF?

as an example, for the RAF the JSF will replace the jaguar, harrier and some tornado roles (these are mainly close support aircraft) but not the tornado deep-strike interdiction or the typhoon in the same role. the RAF's 'first-strike' capability (anti-ccc/anti-radar etc..) will be carried out by the typhoon and tornado using storm shadow ALCM's and RN submarines firing tommahawks SLCM's. the RN is due to buy the V/STOL version of the JSF to accompany its two newly ordered 40,000tn aircraft carriers to provide both air-defence and strike/attack capability - no other A/C appears on the horizon to provide the performance of the JSF in the Naval role with or without its 'stealthyness'.

so whats going on: without its low-observability what comparative capability does the JSF have - and if the reports are true why not just replace ageing aircraft with much cheaper - and proven - new build F-16's/F-15's?

many have spoken of europes need to pull its socks up with regards to its military capability, is the JSF another case of buying overly expensive shiny toys rather than the nuts and bolts workhorses that europe needs to deploy its currently sedentry resources?

**Unipidity** · 04 Jul 05,, 23:14

Well I think the UK is getting US-alike JSFs. Since its a teir 1 technology partner or somesuch wording.. ie paid for lots of dev. It has much longer range than the F-16 from memory. And better radar, avionics etc etc. And even half stealth is an advantage- in the same way that looking 1% like a stick is enough to drive the evolution of stick insects.

**BenRoethig** · 07 Jul 05,, 05:26

The export JSFs will have all but the most classified stealth techniques. It will still have a lower RCS than the eurocanards and a far superior range and payload to the Falcon.

**Hk40** · 18 Jul 05,, 00:32

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

The export JSFs will have all but the most classified stealth techniques. It will still have a lower RCS than the eurocanards and a far superior range and payload to the Falcon.

Let's all recall why the JSF came into becoming a reality. The centeral core issue was and is economics. Commonality. Commonality in desgin and parts means cost effectiveness that has a cascading momentum behind it. Imagine being in the Pentagon/DOD having budget responsibility over the 3 main branches of service. What a headache as all 3 pursue diverging paths in technology, while having there own unique requirements. At some point you'd think someone would say gee?! Ba-da-boom the JSF concept was born. By a bean-counter in the backroom toiling in the wee hours over his coffee and Dunkin dougnuts.
~ Hk40 ~

**Unipidity** · 18 Jul 05,, 02:38

I recall correctly, the F-111 was a joint design as well. So thats hardly a new concept.

**Hk40** · 19 Jul 05,, 15:44

Originally Posted by Unipidity

I recall correctly, the F-111 was a joint design as well. So thats hardly a new concept.

Unipidity - Nobody disputes nor makes the claim that JSF was the only or first joint design - This is just a statement about why in the first place the JSF Program was started and developed into what it is now.
~ Hk40 ~

**BenRoethig** · 19 Jul 05,, 17:29

The F-111 was also designed two completely different roles with the Air Force completely disregarding the Navy's fleet interceptor role when selecting the design. The Navy, Marines, and Air Force are all looking for the same thing here.

**magic-spaceship** · 19 Jul 05,, 18:05

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

The F-111 was also designed two completely different roles with the Air Force completely disregarding the Navy's fleet interceptor role when selecting the design. The Navy, Marines, and Air Force are all looking for the same thing here.

Wasnt the Phoenix missle original designed with the F-111 in mind too?

**BenRoethig** · 19 Jul 05,, 19:43

The F-111 was chosen because it was fast and could carry six mk84 size diameter weapons which are about the same size as the Phoenix. The Phoenix was a follow up to the to the XAAM-N-10 eagle. The Navy knew want it wanted and needed an aircraft to deliver it.