What is up with the F-35? Part II

[jlvfr]

Similarly, while an F-22 would mop the floor with anything else that flies, it couldn't do a strike or surveillance mission like the F-35 can ... go figure, right?

Another case of "not a pound for air-to-ground"?

And I just checked something: unless wikipedia (my only source, atm) is wrong, the F-35 actually has greater combat radious than the F-22! Shouldn't the interceptor have greater range?!

I'd like to take this opportunity to again point out the outright stupidity of the F-35B.

Why? Wasn't that built to replace the VTOL Harrier with another VTOL(ish) plane?

[GGTharos]

Another case of "not a pound for air-to-ground"?

The USAF tried that, but they weren't allowed - with shrinking budgets, it's harder to justify single-role super-fighters. For the moment, the only countries that can afford such are the USA, Russia and maybe China. The F-22 can throw bombs, but it's ability to do so is quite limited. It can bomb what the pilot can see, what the radar can see, what has been datalinked to it, or pre-briefed.

The F-35 is insanely more capable of finding and attacking targets of opportunity, or hitting targets in a certain area that are not well defined in terms of recon (ie. position may not be well known, etc).

And I just checked something: unless wikipedia (my only source, atm) is wrong, the F-35 actually has greater combat radious than the F-22! Shouldn't the interceptor have greater range?!

That depends on the flight profile. Interceptors tend to have higher performance engines, so they burn more fuel just for existing. In addition, the F-22's combat radius probably includes a lot more maneuvering and power/altitude changes than that of the F-35 when a ground-attack mission is considered.



Why? Wasn't that built to replace the VTOL Harrier with another VTOL(ish) plane?[/QUOTE]

[Jimmy]

Another case of "not a pound for air-to-ground"?

No, it's that the F-22 carries it's loadout internally. For the F-35 to provide a meaningful service, it won't...and thus it will show up on radar just like an F-16.

And I just checked something: unless wikipedia (my only source, atm) is wrong, the F-35 actually has greater combat radious than the F-22! Shouldn't the interceptor have greater range?!

I don't think that information has been released, so it's somebody's opinion. I'm not buying the F-35 ranges on that page.

Why? Wasn't that built to replace the VTOL Harrier with another VTOL(ish) plane?

How many times in history have the Marines been forced to assault an advanced enemy without cover from the Navy and/or Air Force? In what possible scenario will they EVER go up against an advanced IADS without that cover? What do they need a stealth CAS platform for? Are they going to actually load it with bombs and negate its low-observable capabilities, or are they going to limit it to an internal loadout and make it damn near useless for its mission?

I agree they needed a Harrier replacement, but this aircraft ain't it.

[jlvfr]

How many times in history have the Marines been forced to assault an advanced enemy without cover from the Navy and/or Air Force?

Agree on the "too much stealth" question, but you can't land/takeoff a CTOL plane from the marine's heli carriers, which, afaik,was why they bought the Harrier in the 1st place.

[Jimmy]

Right. What the Marines needed was a dedicated STOVL CAS platform. That does not describe the F-35 in any variant. Meanwhile costs have skyrocketed and delays have been rampant, and a lot of it is from the B variant. Even without it, there would've been significant delays and overruns, I'm not blaming everything on that specific model...but this story would've been very different if the Marines weren't forced to jump on the bandwagon (they didn't have a choice, it was that or keep flying Harriers until the wings fall off).

[astralis]

i was never sure why the marines just didn't pick up something like Super Tucano back in the day. other than the contractor feed-trough theory.

[Jimmy]

In the 70s/80s that would've been seen as a step backwards. Remember, that's the era the A-1 Skyraider was killed off, despite being fantastic at the job. Plus defense budgets were on the way up to keep the Soviets at bay. Now, we're reaping the benefits of the "peace dividend" that's left our military using much of the same hardware at a higher ops tempo than at any point in history.

[jlvfr]

VTOL A-10.


Just saying ;)

[Jimmy]

VTOL A-10.


Just saying ;)

The idea's been out there for over 20 years.

[Stitch]

The idea's been out there for over 20 years.

I like how the eflux from the wing-mounted engines go STRAIGHT into the vertical stabilizer! Hope those things are made from titanium!

The turret gunner is a nice touch, too; maybe he can shoot down the missles coming at the "VTOL A-10"!

[rundown]

No, it's that the F-22 carries it's loadout internally. For the F-35 to provide a meaningful service, it won't...and thus it will show up on radar just like an F-16.

I agree they needed a Harrier replacement, but this aircraft ain't it.

In red--source, or it didn't happen. As for the rest: actually VTOLs-STOVLs are the only aircraft which had a real combat experience with competent enemy since 1980-s. I underscore--competent. Unless we consider Arab air forces a competent ones. I hope we understand that planes, as well as tanks, ships and people are fighting in different tactical (and operational--that is when theater-wide objectives are involved) scenarios? There is a wonderful account in "Case Studies In The Achievement Of Air Superiority" by Center For Air Force History (edited by Benjamin Franklin Cooling) precisely about that, namely on page 580 in the piece by Brereton Greenhous "The Israeli Experience". If you need a bit of insight of what Arab militaries are--I am at your service.

[rundown]

Agree on the "too much stealth" question, but you can't land/takeoff a CTOL plane from the marine's heli carriers, which, afaik,was why they bought the Harrier in the 1st place.

Believe me (you are free to not to)--there is much more behind that than just comparison of capabilities. There are different cultures behind that--the institutional ones.

[Jimmy]

In red--source, or it didn't happen.

Source for what? That the RCS for an external-stores-equipped F-35 will light up a radar?

As for the rest: actually VTOLs-STOVLs are the only aircraft which had a real combat experience with competent enemy since 1980-s. I underscore--competent. Unless we consider Arab air forces a competent ones. I hope we understand that planes, as well as tanks, ships and people are fighting in different tactical (and operational--that is when theater-wide objectives are involved) scenarios? There is a wonderful account in "Case Studies In The Achievement Of Air Superiority" by Center For Air Force History (edited by Benjamin Franklin Cooling) precisely about that, namely on page 580 in the piece by Brereton Greenhous "The Israeli Experience". If you need a bit of insight of what Arab militaries are--I am at your service.

I'm not at all sure what your point here is. I assume you're referencing Argentina? What does anything here have to do with the choice of a fifth-generation, single engined, high performance multirole fighter as a CAS platform?

[USSWisconsin]

I like how the eflux from the wing-mounted engines go STRAIGHT into the vertical stabilizer! Hope those things are made from titanium!

The turret gunner is a nice touch, too; maybe he can shoot down the missles coming at the "VTOL A-10"!

Are there wheels in those outboard bombs - they appear to reach down pretty far. It must be emitting deadly radiation (that fiery cloud around the plane) too.

[citanon]

In red--source, or it didn't happen. As for the rest: actually VTOLs-STOVLs are the only aircraft which had a real combat experience with competent enemy since 1980-s. I underscore--competent. Unless we consider Arab air forces a competent ones. I hope we understand that planes, as well as tanks, ships and people are fighting in different tactical (and operational--that is when theater-wide objectives are involved) scenarios? There is a wonderful account in "Case Studies In The Achievement Of Air Superiority" by Center For Air Force History (edited by Benjamin Franklin Cooling) precisely about that, namely on page 580 in the piece by Brereton Greenhous "The Israeli Experience". If you need a bit of insight of what Arab militaries are--I am at your service.

Jimmy is a member of USAF. Notice the military professional moniker by his name. IIRC he works on an AWAC.......