US Joint Strike Fighter Program

[Frasas]

I just saw this. Apparently the US is making a force of Strike Fighters......GO US!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Joint_Strike_Fighter

F-35 Lightning

[Ostronopolis]

This is being developed with I nine other countries, and has been for a while.

BTW, yea first!

[Hamilay]

Anyway, what exactly are you asking here?

[Frasas]

:palm:

This is being developed with I nine other countries, and has been for a while.

BTW, yea first!

Well, I it was the first time I saw this. Also, this is the first time I saw the F-35.

[Augmark]

This is ooooold stuff, I knew about this many years ago.

Not as capable in the air superiority role as the F22, but it has its own pros.....and I think we are exporting it to the U.K. and Australia. In my opinion, this is a lot of money for something we don't need. We should spend less money, improving the stuff we had. Making something stealthy is a lot of money. Many nations like Russia have the ability to detect stealth aircraft (low frequency radar I think).

But then again......nations would think twice before messing with us (but probably not)

EDIT: and any other nation that will use them

[Etoile Arcture]

If you're new to this program (and hell, everyone can't be watching Future Weapons), check out the official site here: http://www.jsf.mil/ for pics, vid, official (sanitised) history, etc.

[Frasas]

This is ooooold stuff, I knew about this many years ago.

Not as capable in the air superiority role as the F22, but it has its own pros.....and I think we are exporting it to the U.K. and Australia. In my opinion, this is a lot of money for something we don't need. We should spend less money, improving the stuff we had. Making something stealthy is a lot of money. Many nations like Russia have the ability to detect stealth aircraft (low frequency radar I think).

But then again......nations would think twice before messing with us (but probably not)

EDIT: and any other nation that will use them

Russia has no planes that can fight for air-superiority that challenge us. If they do they are in very limited numbers.

[Risottia]

Also, this is the first time I saw the F-35.

Really? Its pics have been around quite a while.


Anyway, I'm not exactly an F-35 estimator.
1.Underpowered (has only 60% of the thrust of, let's say, a Su-35) - plus, its tilt engine was modeled after the engine of the highly unsuccessful Yak-141.
2.Costs like crazy.
3.Short range after STO or VTO.
4.Loses its prime raison-d'etre (very low signature) if it must carry some external payload.
5.Slow (can't even go Mach 2 at high altitude).

I think that, as strike fighters go, the good old Tornado IDS still bests any western counterpart... and, of course, let's not forget the Su-34 Fullback, which is quite wonderful.

[Augmark]

This is ooooold stuff, I knew about this many years ago.

Not as capable in the air superiority role as the F22, but it has its own pros.....and I think we are exporting it to the U.K. and Australia. In my opinion, this is a lot of money for something we don't need. We should spend less money, improving the stuff we had. Making something stealthy is a lot of money. Many nations like Russia have the ability to detect stealth aircraft (low frequency radar I think).

But then again......nations would think twice before messing with us (but probably not)

EDIT: and any other nation that will use them

Russia has no planes that can fight for air-superiority that challenge us. If they do they are in very limited numbers.

They do have some great aircraft(like the Su-27 and Su-30), but yes, they are in very limited numbers.....and US pilot training is far superior

But I'm talking about their air defenses, surface to air missiles, radar warning systems, which are arguable, the best in the world.

[Eofaerwic]

This is ooooold stuff, I knew about this many years ago.

Not as capable in the air superiority role as the F22, but it has its own pros.....and I think we are exporting it to the U.K. and Australia. In my opinion, this is a lot of money for something we don't need. We should spend less money, improving the stuff we had. Making something stealthy is a lot of money. Many nations like Russia have the ability to detect stealth aircraft (low frequency radar I think).

I think one of the points of the F-35 is it's VTOL capability and thus use on aircraft carriers. Or at least that's certainly why the UK is buying them, as a replacement for the aging Harriers, as opposed to as the primary air superiority fighter for which they have the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes no stealth but better than the F-22 at dogfighting)

[United Russian State]

Looks like the F-22 and this being an export version of it.

[Risottia]

Russia has no planes that can fight for air-superiority that challenge us. If they do they are in very limited numbers.

You know that the second sentence implicitly denies the first one?

Anyway, the Su-35 and the MiG-29OVT isn't exactly something you'd want to discount - expecially since:
-both carry missiles that outrange any western missile AND outmaneuver any aircraft
-the Su-35 it doesn't rely on radar only (IR + optical also), don't know about the MiG-29

And don't forget the MiG-31 - which is still a serious threat to any bomber.

[Augmark]

This is ooooold stuff, I knew about this many years ago.

Not as capable in the air superiority role as the F22, but it has its own pros.....and I think we are exporting it to the U.K. and Australia. In my opinion, this is a lot of money for something we don't need. We should spend less money, improving the stuff we had. Making something stealthy is a lot of money. Many nations like Russia have the ability to detect stealth aircraft (low frequency radar I think).

I think one of the points of the F-35 is it's VTOL capability and thus use on aircraft carriers. Or at least that's certainly why the UK is buying them, as a replacement for the aging Harriers, as opposed to as the primary air superiority fighter for which they have the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes no stealth but better than the F-22 at dogfighting)

Is the Eurofighter better?...I always thought the thrust vectoring gave the F22 an edge in maneuverability

but then again, technically these new generation 4.5 fighters, and 5 fighters aren't technically supposed to dogfight, they are meant to kill the enemy from out of visual range

[Frasas]

This is ooooold stuff, I knew about this many years ago.

Not as capable in the air superiority role as the F22, but it has its own pros.....and I think we are exporting it to the U.K. and Australia. In my opinion, this is a lot of money for something we don't need. We should spend less money, improving the stuff we had. Making something stealthy is a lot of money. Many nations like Russia have the ability to detect stealth aircraft (low frequency radar I think).

But then again......nations would think twice before messing with us (but probably not)

EDIT: and any other nation that will use them

Russia has no planes that can fight for air-superiority that challenge us. If they do they are in very limited numbers.

They do have some great aircraft(like the Su-27 and Su-30), but yes, they are in very limited numbers.....and US pilot training is far superior

But I'm talking about their air defenses, surface to air missiles, radar warning systems, which are arguable, the best in the world.

No, not necessarily look at the United States Tomahawk missile or US/Israeli Laser

Laser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

[Risottia]

but then again, technically these new generation 4.5 fighters, and 5 fighters aren't technically supposed to dogfight, they are meant to kill the enemy from out of visual range

Actually generation 3 was already meant for BVR. (F-4, MiG-23)

[Anemos Major]

The F-35 is a flexible weapons system, that's all.

And the Su-34 looks amazing. The Russians did a very underrated job with the Flanker series; they're very effective, cost and performance wise, and easy to modify.

[KaIashnikov]

"We should spend less money, improving the stuff we had. Making something stealthy is a lot of money."

We have been doing that for decades. Our fighters are pretty old, most of which are from the late 70s. Upgrade after upgrade the frame (original 1970s) begin to have problems.

And the Russians, your aircraft can do a lot of little spins a drags (what the Sukhois are famous for) but that really wont matter when A: A cruise missile destroys it on the ground or B: The opposing pilot knows how to counter everything you try to pull, and trust me, the U.S. Air force knows what your going to try to pull.

[Eofaerwic]

This is ooooold stuff, I knew about this many years ago.

Not as capable in the air superiority role as the F22, but it has its own pros.....and I think we are exporting it to the U.K. and Australia. In my opinion, this is a lot of money for something we don't need. We should spend less money, improving the stuff we had. Making something stealthy is a lot of money. Many nations like Russia have the ability to detect stealth aircraft (low frequency radar I think).

I think one of the points of the F-35 is it's VTOL capability and thus use on aircraft carriers. Or at least that's certainly why the UK is buying them, as a replacement for the aging Harriers, as opposed to as the primary air superiority fighter for which they have the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes no stealth but better than the F-22 at dogfighting)

Is the Eurofighter better?...I always thought the thrust vectoring gave the F22 an edge in maneuverability

I believe the Eurofighter does just come out on top on the maneuverability factor - certainly reports from pilots (well pilot) who has flown both would indicate that they're both the best at what they do, which for the F-22 is long range whilst for the Eurofighter it's dogfighting. There have been some reports in direct Eurofigther v F-22 tests that the Eurofighter comes out on top. However of course, it doesn't have stealth - arguably because at the ranges you'd be having conflicts over Europe airspace, stealth is a bit of a non-issue, but it's still a bit of a drawback.

[Risottia]

And the Russians, your aircraft can do a lot of little spins a drags (what the Sukhois are famous for) but that really wont matter when A: A cruise missile destroys it on the ground

Since the americans have no supersonic cruise missiles (which the russians have since the '60s), there's all the time in the world to scramble before the missile hits.

or B: The opposing pilot knows how to counter everything you try to pull, and trust me, the U.S. Air force knows what your going to try to pull.

Knowing what he's going to pull doesn't mean being able to counter it.

[NERV arms conglomerate]

the primary use for the F-35 is the same primary use for the harrier, its other primary use is on the 2 new British aircraft carriers.
im not sure whats going on in other country's but that's the UK'S story

[Risottia]

the primary use for the F-35 is the same primary use for the harrier, its other primary use is on the 2 new British aircraft carriers.
im not sure whats going on in other country's but that's the UK'S story

Same as Italy, they will be used mostly by the Naval Aviation.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

And the Russians, your aircraft can do a lot of little spins a drags (what the Sukhois are famous for) but that really wont matter when A: A cruise missile destroys it on the ground

Since the americans have no supersonic cruise missiles (which the russians have since the '60s), there's all the time in the world to scramble before the missile hits.

You guys do know that cruise missiles aren't used against aircraft on the ground or otherwise, right?

[Risottia]

And the Russians, your aircraft can do a lot of little spins a drags (what the Sukhois are famous for) but that really wont matter when A: A cruise missile destroys it on the ground

Since the americans have no supersonic cruise missiles (which the russians have since the '60s), there's all the time in the world to scramble before the missile hits.

You guys do know that cruise missiles aren't used against aircraft on the ground or otherwise, right?

I know. I assumed cruise missiles aimed at aircraft shelters or hangars or runways.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

the primary use for the F-35 is the same primary use for the harrier, its other primary use is on the 2 new British aircraft carriers.
im not sure whats going on in other country's but that's the UK'S story

The F-35 was designed for modularity and currently includes 3 variants: A, B and C.

A is a conventional take off and landing aircraft.
B is a V/STOL Aircraft. The British are primarily interested in these.
C is a long deck carrier-based version.

The advantage of this is that almost all of the parts for the 3 versions are identical to keep costs down. What really makes the F-35 special however is it's 360 degree advanced radar and sensor systems and high bore weapons systems. It doesn't have to dogfight. It can engage and respond to targets in all directions with equal capability. The intention being to render enemy maneuverability obsolete.

[L3 Communications]

Also, this is the first time I saw the F-35.

Really? Its pics have been around quite a while.


Anyway, I'm not exactly an F-35 estimator.
1.Underpowered (has only 60% of the thrust of, let's say, a Su-35) - plus, its tilt engine was modeled after the engine of the highly unsuccessful Yak-141.
2.Costs like crazy.
3.Short range after STO or VTO.
4.Loses its prime raison-d'etre (very low signature) if it must carry some external payload.
5.Slow (can't even go Mach 2 at high altitude).

I think that, as strike fighters go, the good old Tornado IDS still bests any western counterpart... and, of course, let's not forget the Su-34 Fullback, which is quite wonderful.

The Strike Eagle would like a violent word with you.