Sorry for the delay but I had a beautiful rebuttal to you guys and then made the fatal error of literally going 1 character over the 4000 limit, so
all was lost
I wont even bother to try rewriting it I'm to depressed about it so I'll just answer your statements simply.
RichardPrice,
Nope sorry the design lineage for the F-35 goes back to the mid 90's as Ghost1 said and the design philosophy even further to the early 90's late
80s so it is indeed a product of late cold war thinking. The fact the contract was signed in 2001, the software code is only now being written, and
the paper concept fleshed out, cannot alter the basic size, shape, number of engines or performance of the F-35.
Only some features are shared with the F-22 such as the basic engine core design. In fact the two aircraft are designed to share concepts such as the
F-35 side looking AESA panels as forward and backwards compatible items. Using your argument it could just as easily be said the F-22 is a product of
the F-35, which is untrue of course. This is not the same as the concept I was putting forward for a physically larger aircraft based on current
sustained persistence doctrine. Why else do you think they have employed B-1 and B-52 bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan? Its all about a large payload
for bombs, gas and space for sensors.
You are confusing the terms RANGE and RADIUS. The only one that counts is the latter. And if you read again you will see I said
a craft of
larger size to achieve a perhaps a 1000NM radius with a greater weapon load capacity
. The actual combat RADIUS of the F-35A is usually quoted
at about 600NM, very slightly less than the combat radius of the FA-18E/F (often quoted as 635NM).
Incidentally guys, did you know that one of the design dimensional limits for the F-35 was the size of the deck lifts on the RN's Invincible class
carrier's? The irony is by the time the F-35 makes it into service, even without IOC slippage, they will be either paid off or very close to it.
Being replaced with the much larger Queen Elizabeth class.
Ghost1,
I'm sure by now you realise that I know my aircraft, and I like to think a little of their development history. I am not confusing the Raptor's
lineage with the JSF, rather I am highlighting that both are more or less cold war in their thinking. The Raptors size and attributes mean it is still
more or less relevant to the "new" doctrine. You were quite correct to point out that the design parameters were more or less set in the mid 90's,
but as I said above the conceptual thinking behind this goes back further . I am sure you can agree that in military aircraft development, ideas can
take a long time to come to fruition, a la the ATF program.
Remember the F-35 was conceived as the low end to the F-22's high end, (albeit they were conceived with 10-12yr long gap between them) just like the
F-15/F-16 combination. Don't forget that the F-35 was designed to take over from the F-16, A-10, FA-18, F-117 etc, in the European style battlefront
scenario. That is masses of Soviet/Warpac armor and troop columns pouring through the German Fulda gap. To this end their stealth was specifically
designed to defeat Soviet "teen series" SAM acquisition radar's. It wasn't till the late 90's when first Bosnia then Afghanistan started to wake
the Generals, that it began to be touted for the kind of expeditionary warfare we now are facing as a reality.
So to my mind the current F-35 is very much a "yesterday's" square peg being jammed into an increasingly round hole.
Well I'll be!! seems I have managed to rewrite most of what I lost
Except the bit about why the F-35B is a waste of effort
LEE.
[edit on 19-4-2007 by thebozeian]
[edit on 19-4-2007 by thebozeian]