U.S. may scrap F35, set to be Israel's fighter jet of the future

reply to post by Cosmic4life


The J-20 is their Air Superiority fighter. It rivals the F-22 in performance and outclasses the F-35. They have different roles of course but if I'm the US I wouldn't waste the Billions of Dollars on the already outclassed F-35

www.ausairpower.net...

reply to post by waynos


get it though you thick skull that America's first stealth was before the SR-71. Just think about that let it sink in. The British are good a making navel fleets stick to that. Fanboy lol really everybody except the Russians are not even close to us and its been that way for years. Lol we have stealth helicopters we had drones before anybody else,stealth before anybody else "actually used"! . Lol the reason we didnt up grade our planes is because they destroy 99% of what the world has so why upgrade? #2 why would they scrap a plane right before production gee i wonder? Maybe the heavily priced plane cost went to something else. Just look at the results of the raptor its not that great but it cost a ton to make. If you really think we are going to put up for sale the best plane we have and the newest your sadly mistaken. We are so far ahead the game is fixed we produce a plane that is slightly lower in performance and the world judges its planes based on how well their planes stats compare to it. Your in dream land we have planes with lasers that can knock down a missile and your countries buy our defense systems to protect themself's. Yet you still think you make a better plane lol. Get real.

reply to post by pcrobotwolf
If Waynos doesn't respond to this in the next 12 to 24hrs, I WILL.

But let me just make one observation, you haven't shown a shred of proof for any of your fantastic claims about stealth helicopters or "99%" kill ratio's against anything else, or any other of your wild rant claims. So if I were you, I would start getting my proof and arguments together now and carefully, preferably in a coherent manner with your spell/grammar checker switched to on.

*And another thing, STOP inserting that ridiculous "LOL" in your sentence's, do you even know what it means anymore? Do you even have a grasp of "LOL etiquette"? It makes you sound like a 14 year old, oh wait,... you probably are.

LEE.

Ahem.....

The petty SNIPING and off topic comments will stop NOW.

Kudos to those members who attempted to keep this conversation on track...........

Back ON topic:

Its unlikely that the US will cancel the F-35 outright. While congress will hem and haw and Lockmart executives will wring hands and point to "mission creep" as to the cost its all a dog and pony show. The F-35 production (parts etc) is spread out over some petty powerful congressional districts and politicos wont bite the hands that feed them.

The only portion of the F-35 that is in trouble is the STOVL model. The US marines have historically enjoyed alot of lobby power int he US but that may be waining when facing the stark realities of our projected budget. With the UK not buying the C variant it may simply be too expensive for anybody to procure. \

As far as the J-20 and the F-35 (or the F-22) for that matter Im still amazed at how Russian and now chicom weapons systems seem to develop this invicibility and near mythological status while still on paper or just having entered flight test. To compare the J-20 with the F-35 is akin to comparing the F-22 to say a J-7. They are different aircraft with for seems like different overall missions.

most of you have already seen this, but for those who haven't ... here's the first appearance of the F-35C in an airshow.



reply to post by pcrobotwolf


kindly look into the timeline for the development and deployment of the Avro Vulcan. somebody correct me if i'm wrong on this but IIRC, it was the first plane ever deployed which manifested an uncanny but most probably unintended knack for occasionally disappearing from radar. while you're at it, do some research on the Horten Ho-229 as well.

reply to post by toreishi


i know about the hortan ho i put "actually used" after stealth. It would seem i have pissed off a lot of people with my statements. i never put 100% kill ratio. Lol mean's laugh out loud and i was going to cut it from the sentence but i guess i missed it. And yes stealth helicopter was what was used when we "killed" Usama Bin why destroy a helicopter every country knows we have and can buy.

I'm well aware that this is just assumptions when i talk about what we might have. But judging from our history from the 1950's on we have had planes that smash almost everyone. Granted mig made some awesome planes and i respect the British made harriers pretty cool tech at that time. But let me take you to early 1990's nobody was talking crap then. Why do you think we have progressed backwards?

What because our economy? We have drones now and yes they are not fighter capable but in a war waged on the ground why use a fighter plane? Which leaves the question why shouldn't we already have the tech to do so? Just that question should make some people wonder why we scraped our latest fighters. why build planes that are manned? you feel no g's in a unmanned plane also no risk to the highly trained pilots, which means we can build faster more agile planes so why invest in something that is only a capable as the pilot g's wise. Also kindly look into the timeline for the development and deployment of the Avro Vulcan lol watch the documentary about what really happened at area 51 before the blackbird

reply to post by thebozeian


www.dailymail.co.uk... here's the link to the plane that knocks down missiles. here's the reaper pic www.bing.com... heres your evidence about the stealth helicopter www.cbsnews.com...

So, in the spirit of 'right to reply', here goes;

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
reply to post by waynos

 

get it though you thick skull that America's first stealth was before the SR-71. Just think about that let it sink in.

I will not have my intelligence insulted by someone who cannot write coherently or spell properly, or even argue something I actually said. What is the relevance of this random statement to anything I posted? I am not talking about the SR-71 or when America got stealth technologies and who from, that is a different discussion. So, with that out of the way, lets begin;

The British are good a making navel fleets stick to that.

Wrong, were, not are, but too off topic to pursue.

Fanboy lol

Yes, as evidenced by;

really everybody except the Russians are not even close to us and its been that way for years. Lol we have stealth helicopters we had drones before anybody else,stealth before anybody else "actually used"! . Lol the reason we didnt up grade our planes is because they destroy 99% of what the world has so why upgrade?

Pure, unadulterated crap. Yes, America deployed stealth technology (in the modern sense) before anyone else. That is true. The main reasons for this are budget and paranoia, but mainly budget. Stealth is well understood by other nations and has been for decades.

Drones have been in use for more than 70 years by many many countries, I really cannot say who was 'first' without looking it up but the WW2 Miles Hoopla bomb carrying drone was probably the first of what we today would call a "UCAV". Do you even know what I am referring to?

The US is today the most advanced in the field of modern UCAV tech, but again, this is mainly due to budgetary restrictions in other countries, not knowledge restrictions. There have been some developments in other countries that have not yet been demonstrated in the USA, its really not all one way. Have a look at Project Churchill as one example of cross co-operation where allies learned from each other.

Re the Stealth helicopters you refer to. Do you mean the scrapped RAH-66, or the small scale modification kit fitted to the Bin Laden mission chopper? This was a modification to a standard UH-60 model, something the USMC has been doing for a while, not a different type of helicopter. You do know that, yes?

#2 why would they scrap a plane right before production gee i wonder? Maybe the heavily priced plane cost went to something else.

No, the F-22 and F-35 really are that expensive. Just because you cannot grasp the complexity of these projects it does not make them a cover up. This argument, all by itself, is where you lose any shred of credibility. And look like a fanboy.

Just look at the results of the raptor its not that great but it cost a ton to make.

Please quantify 'not that good', if you know what you are talking about at all.

If you really think we are going to put up for sale the best plane we have and the newest your sadly mistaken.

Again you are arguing points I'm not making. First your best is not also your newest, be clear on that. Second, why do you think there is a total export ban on the F-22, but not on the F-35? Maybe you should have a think about that and let it sink in, as you so condescendingly posted. I never even said anything close to the argument you are making.

We are so far ahead the game is fixed we produce a plane that is slightly lower in performance and the world judges its planes based on how well their planes stats compare to it. Your in dream land we have planes with lasers that can knock down a missile and your countries buy our defense systems to protect themself's. Yet you still think you make a better plane lol. Get real.

You are the one in dreamland, and you quite clearly demostrate with every new claim. The US has built one laser armed plane, not 'planes', it is based on a 747 due to the massive power needed for it and it has flown demos which have proven that it is far to specialised and maintenance intensive to be of any operational use. Is this what you class as 'we have'?

Now, it is the nature of things that this very temperamental and relatively primitive prototype (as all prototypes inevitably are) will lead, in the fullness of time, to smaller, reliable and usable weapons, but that day is many years away. The Boeing AL-1, remember, has been in development since the early 1980's, about 30 years all told so far.

Do you REALLY think its all been a big secret? Look at this, look at the date



Of course you can feel free to believe your computer game delusions about super secret weapons and dummy multi billion dollar prgrammes, but I prefer to stick to the real world and leave my fantasy fix to Doctor Who, thanks chum

Separately from all that;

I cannot see the US scrapping the whole F-35 programme, or at least Id be very surprised if they do, as I cannot see the USN and USMC being happy to continue with the F-18 for another 30 years, or the USAF with the F-16 for the same.

Yes, the unmanned drones ARE coming, thats true, but I see them as force multipliers for smaller numbers of advanced manned aircraft, not a total replacement, so a modern aircraft is still going to be required. As I wrote a few days ago, I can see a slimming down of the project, with the F-35B looking more superfluous every day.

Well, at least they didn't come on here arguing that the triangle is the next great aviation revolution waiting to happen.

Anyway - the way I see the F-35 likely going is for it to end up being reduced to a series of avionics and control system components to be fitted into existing airframes. Kind of like an "after market" sound system for your car... only this would be for aircraft. The focus would be on existing military's F-16s and F-18s. The solid-state radar components of the F-35 put into another airframe could improve operational readiness considerably - as corroded radar antenna and waveguides are -not- cheap or quick to put back into service.

As for the airframe itself - I'm not really sure. It's got higher wing loading than the F-105 - which doesn't bode well. The airframe doesn't really live up to what the electronics of the F-35 are capable of. From a functional standpoint - the LO features of the F-35 are just "too little, too late" - more modern systems would have little trouble picking out "birds" flying at 480 knots. It might be a bit more tricky for terminal guidance phases of missiles - but so are maneuvering aircraft.

It would seem to me the goal of a 'stealth' aircraft should be to incorporate LO technology that does not hamper performance and maneuverability to large degrees. With a standard CAS load, the F-35 will be a penguin. Maneuverability on top of LO makes for a difficult target - when you get intermittent contacts from the target, it has a much wider range of probable courses from that point - making a prediction of "where did he go" more difficult.

They would be better off to go with an F-18E and put the F-35 avionics and cockpit systems inside of it, honestly. But the F-35 surviving as an airframe seems like a rather lost cause, to me.

reply to post by Aim64C


your post got me thinking (thanks ) so what follows will probably be as far off from the truth as possible. don't fret, nothing wrong with the previous post. i just want to project a couple of uncertain probabilities along the lines of what was mentioned there.

paragraph 1:

Kind of like an "after market" sound system for your car... only this would be for aircraft. The focus would be on existing military's F-16s and F-18s. The solid-state radar components of the F-35 put into another airframe could improve operational readiness considerably

imagine what the F-35's sensor suite could do if all that stuff was mounted on a multi-role stealth blimp. possible roles for a stealth blimp could include tanker duty, AWACS, comm hub for ISR, and even mothership for a bunch of UCAVs.

paragraph 2:

As for the airframe itself - I'm not really sure. It's got higher wing loading than the F-105

yup, but the F-105 was a needle while the F-35 looks like it evolved from Burnelli's OA-1 (personally, i call it a bastardized hybrid lifting body). i agree with the rest of the paragraph though.

paragraph 3:

in a purely militaristic sense this would be true. now maybe i'm just being paranoid or just wearing my usual tinfoil hat, but it seems to me that after the successes of the XB-70 prototype and SR-71s in scaring the russians during the cold war, the MIC in the US aren't really concerned with building planes to win wars. at least that's how it looks to me. consider the B-2, which represented the threat of a silent, invisible preemptive strike and destroyed the detente imposed by the MAD doctrine between the US and the USSR back then. it didn't even have to drop a bomb or anything for the berlin wall to fall. now, i think that's a good investment considering that each plane cost $2.17 billion in 1997 dollars.

maybe that's what they're doing with the F-35 and other projects today. make a plane that threatens other potential enemies that they'd have no choice but to create/develop technologies to counter it. make the cost so prohibitive that the enemy will have no choice but to collapse/change if they are really serious about catching up with your technology. but don't make it so hard for the enemy to catch up, otherwise they might decide to just quit the race... so you gotta hand them leaks and pretend to be dumb every once in a while.

nice plan or what?

Originally posted by toreishi
imagine what the F-35's sensor suite could do if all that stuff was mounted on a multi-role stealth blimp. possible roles for a stealth blimp could include tanker duty, AWACS, comm hub for ISR, and even mothership for a bunch of UCAVs.

Why even go that far?

Imagine what the F35 sensor suite (if it works as advertised) could do being fiited into the F22. As far as I know, the F35 is supposed to have a superior sensors package.

reply to post by peck420


they're a bit different, although there are rumors that both of their sensor suites can also double as offensive ECM (does this mean it can fry another plane's radar?). think of it as the F-22's sensor suite being optimized for long-range sniping while the F-35's sensor suite would probably be something that will convince an enemy's radar that it's just a fast moving cloud, while giving the F-35's pilot the situational awareness he needs to get the job done. at the same time he's got a direct line to his guardian angel who's flying an F-22 and who's just itching for some enemy pilot dumb enough to chase after the fast moving cloud.

reply to post by Aim64C


Your thoughts do have a precedent in history, as I was reading your post I was reminded how some TSR 2 systems ended up being fitted into pods that were carried by RAF Phantoms for the next 20 years. Not exactly the same ad you are saying, but pretty close.

reply to post by waynos


There is also the Phoenix missile system that has a similar history. The AWG-9 radar was originally intended to be mounted into the F-111 and paired with the Aim-54 Phoenix. After the F-111 had considerable issues with performance and weight constraints (especially the carrier version) - the system found new life in the F-14 and the F-111 found new life as a light-medium strike bomber.