I have a number of points on this article:
- The claim that the F-35A/C are compromised as a result of the JSF concept may very well be the case, but apart from being repeating often it
generally hasn't actually been proven and certainly not by The War Zone or its predecessors. I understand it's somewhat hard, because the F-35A is the
only aircraft in its class at the moment. Anyway, the F-35A has a similar configuration to the F-22 yet is 40% smaller, with larger weapons bays, more
and more advanced sensors, heavier but more maintenance friendly RAM, single engine and no TVC, but with the same
fuel capacity. The
capabilities of the F-22A which were lost as a result were supercruise, supermaneuverability, and perhaps some F-22A specific growth potential (cheek
Even if the F-35 wasn't tri-service, I think the airframe itself would probably be relatively similar. Let's not forget that within the JSF concept,
the F-35B was the closest to not meeting requirements which triggered the redesign (and delay) which actually
significantly improved the F-35A and F-35C
and is one of the reasons why the airframe
commonality is low. If you really wanted to keep supercruise and maneuverability, then I think an aircraft like an FB-22 would emerge. Of course,
unless mixed with another lower end aircraft, this would not be affordable and maneuverability probably isn't needed for most F-35 missions, in other
words this would result in a compromised design...
I will be creating a thread on this with more evidence.
And yes, it would have been nice if the JSF program was 3 different aircraft that had common mission systems. Many other things should have been done
- Tyler states they might as well go with the F-35B since they already have the F-35A:
It would be a good move for either country to procure the F-35B, or used Harriers, for shipboard or dispersed operations. As I have discussed in
great detailed over the years, the F-35 A and C models' design was impacted negatively on virtually all levels to accommodate the B model's STOVL
requirement. With that in mind, by purchasing even small numbers of B models, operators of the A variant can achieve the benefits of the B model's
unique capabilities to offset the performance sacrifices paid by their A model fleet.
This is a perfect example of sunk cost fallacy. If Japan, South Korea, and Australia are getting the F-35A, they shouldn't buy the F-35B
"just-because". There should be a requirement for a STOVL aircraft. The alleged performance sacrifices made in the design of the F-35A do not mean
they should get the F-35B, since the F-35B does somehow not make up for these compromises whatever they may be. This is really bizarre thinking. Also
Tyler, as "(he) (has) discussed in great detail over the years" believes there are little to no benefits from the commonality or interoperability
(despite the mission systems being identical across all 3 variants) so I don't understand why he thinks there is any benefit, he is contradicting
This may seem like somewhat of an abstract concept but it is a key argument for the jet when it comes to its Pentagon service.
The Pentagon needed
a CTOL aircraft, a STOVL aircraft, and a CV aircraft. So they made the JSF program.
- Australia is almost hell-bent on building a 5th generation force.
From 2005 onwards, fifth-generation fighter aircraft are characterised by very low-observability including internal weapons bays, vastly improved
situational awareness through a network-centric combat environment. Examples include the F-35A.
Because fifth-generation aircraft operate in a network-centric combat environment, the entire Air Force must be optimised to provide the joint and
networked effects necessary to prevail against the increasingly complex and lethal threats of warfare in the Information Age.
A fifth-generation Air Force is a fully-networked force that exploits the combatmultiplier effects of a readily available, integrated and shared
battlespace picture to deliver lethal and non-lethal air power.
Therefore, there is less than zero chance that Australia would ever procure the Harrier. I am assuming this was left out because it would require
Tyler Rogoway to say something positive about the F-35.
- Canberra Class had BAE Systems Australia as the prime contractor, with L3, Saab, and Navantia (who built Juan Carlos) as subcontractors. I'm not
sure if licence-built is therefore the right word, when the hull itself was made in Spain. Of course, I'm pretty sure Canberra Class at this point has
more time at sea than Juan Carlos. And unless there's something I don't know, the ski-jump was a vestigial remnant of the Juan Carlos design.
These were originally intended for relatively low intensity warfare and humanitarian assistance with helicopters only (albeit they were used exercise
at Talisman Sabre, which is a high intensity exercise), so I would bet that embarking the F-35B on them would be the result of a concept of operations
change and end up with many more changes other than merely jet-blast protection (not everything relates to problems with the F-35, after
) and other changes required for the addition of fixed wing aircraft.
Looks like they are heading in that direction, adding CIWS to them as
, but Defence was also asked to look into the F-35B by the last PM, and
rejected the proposal based on the costs
of modifying the ships
among other factors. I'll never say never though. Perhaps it is similar with South Korea and Japan (I'm sure Tyler would
rather talk about F-35 compromises).
edit on 27/12/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)