Should we buy the F-35?

[Canopus]

Hey Comrade i think a Naval Eurofighter is already in the works.

And a 2020 version

So who needs an F-35?

Edited September 28, 2013 by Canopus

[Comrade Jenkens]

wow! didn't know any of that was planned. Still not sure why the UK chose the F-35 instead of developing that immediately.

[Ace_Of_Spades]

Just put modern weapons and stuff in older Aircraft and then you dont have to keep making more crap like the f-35 that costs more than a city

[Goldham]

Just put modern weapons and stuff in older Aircraft and then you dont have to keep making more crap like the f-35 that costs more than a city

That wouldn't work forever though, advances in Technology and Aerodynamic construction would eventually cause a older plane's airframe to be really outdated, and there isnt much you can do about that.

[Seret]

That wouldn't work forever though, advances in Technology and Aerodynamic construction would eventually cause a older plane's airframe to be really outdated, and there isnt much you can do about that.

Not just advances in technology either. Modernisation programmes are done a lot, just look at all the aircraft like A-4s and F-5s that were still in front line service at the turn of the 21st century. However, every airframe does have a limited fatigue life. Things can be done to mitigate that (essentially replacing big chunks of airframe) but it's expensive and difficult and it's often cheaper to just buy newer ones. Parts also become difficult to obtain for older models, especially if you've turned it into an orphan system by upgrading it so that it no longer resembles other examples of its type.

For a really extreme example of a type that's been through a lot of upgrades and remanufacturing, check out the USAF's B-52 fleet. Last I heard plans were to keep flying them into the 2050s, by which time some of the airframes will be approaching 100 years old.

[Joshua21B]

At its current funding levels NASA would have to be completely shut down for over twenty years to save the amount of money we have spent designing the F-35. Make of that what you will.

[Comrade Jenkens]

At its current funding levels NASA would have to be completely shut down for over twenty years to save the amount of money we have spent designing the F-35. Make of that what you will.

I also think its depressing how much is spent on military. I'd much rather that the money was put into healthcare and scientific research.

Random thought though.... Do ppl reckon that a engine precooler similar to a skylon one could be used in a next gen fighter? A top speed of Mach 5 would be impressive.

[Canopus]

I have no problem if they spend money on developing aircraft though.

Random thought though.... Do ppl reckon that a engine precooler similar to a skylon one could be used in a next gen fighter? A top speed of Mach 5 would be impressive.

Why would a fighter need to go that fast though? And that would require much fuel. Edited September 30, 2013 by stupid_chris
don't double post

[Comrade Jenkens]

I have no problem if they spend money on developing aircraft though.

Why would a fighter need to go that fast though? And that would require much fuel.

The sabre engine has an ISP of 3600s and without the complex rocket mechanisms it could by considerably more. Then again I have no idea how fuel efficient modern jet engines are.

And at that speed it would be untouchable by any current weaponry possessed by any country.

[Canopus]

I could only imagine an Interceptor making use of such speeds. Or an airliner like the LAPCAT A2

[Vonar]

The F-35 is by itself a great fighter when dealing with second, third, and fourth generation fighters. The only problem is it is a massive handout cough cough B.j to the military industrial complex that has been compleatly hacked by both Russia and China so its overall effectiveness against their 5'th generation fighters & modern air defense systems (AKA S-400, and S-500's) will be questionable at best.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Vonar

[Canopus]

The F-35 is by itself a great fighter when dealing with second, third, and fourth generation fighters. The only problem is it is a massive handout cough cough B.j to the dod that has been compleatly hacked by both Russia and China so its overall effectiveness against their 5'th generation fighters & modern air defense systems (AKA S-400, and S-500's) will be questionable at best.

Every modern fighter can deal with earlier generation aircrafts.

The F-35 really not that Great. It lacks maneuverability, Supercruise and a a good Weaponsload. The only thing that even makes it fall into the questionable "5th generation" classification is its limited stealth Capability.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Canopus

[Vonar]

Every modern fighter can deal with earlier generation aircrafts.

The F-35 really not that Great. It lacks maneuverability, Supercruise and a a good Weaponsload. Te only thing that even makes it fall into the questionable "5th generation" classification is its limited stealth Capability.

What would you define as a "good weapons loadout for a stealth fighter/bomber?" - the F-35 has the same 8 hardpoints that the F-22 has and from the sources I've read it can carry a much larger array of weapons then the F-22. Of course only two of those are internal so there is a tradeoff. For another comparison the Russian PAK-FA has 12 (6 internal and 6 external). No idea on exact figures of the J-20 or J-31, but I would presume they would be similar.

Also it would seem that Supercruse and the large IR signature would make a stealth aircraft a much easier target to detect and shoot at - kinda defeating the whole purpose of the stealth technology. From what I can tell the F-22 has it and using supercruise would create a massive ir signature for missile seakers with Infrared homing technology to lock on to which is not what your attempting to achieve with stealth technology.

[Canopus]

What would you define as a "good weapons loadout for a stealth fighter/bomber?" - the F-35 has the same 8 hardpoints that the F-22 has and from the sources I've read it can carry a much larger array of weapons then the F-22. Of course only two of those are internal so there is a tradeoff. For another comparison the Russian PAK-FA has 12 (6 internal and 6 external). No idea on exact figures of the J-20 or J-31, but I would presume they would be similar.

Also it would seem that Supercruse and the large IR signature would make a stealth aircraft a much easier target to detect and shoot at - kinda defeating the whole purpose of the stealth technology. From what I can tell the F-22 has it and using supercruise would create a massive ir signature for missile seakers with Infrared homing technology to lock on to.

Exactly it has a very small internal weapons bay and once you use external hardpoints its stealth is obsolete. And about supercruise, heatseeking missiles are always close range weapons so you would see the aircraft anyway.

[Vonar]

Exactly it has a very small internal weapons bay and once you use external hardpoints its stealth is obsolete. And about supercruise, heatseeking missiles are always close range weapons so you would see the aircraft anyway.

A weapon doesn't necessarly half to be a aircraft to compeate with a Stealth fighter. If your facing a modern air defense network you could still be shot down. Afterall a relativly old SA-3 battery shot down a F-117 in Yugoslavia & that technology was 40 years old at the time. Of course this lesson taught us that Stealth doesn't make you invincable - just less visable, and there are way's to limit your exposure to ground radar which would be the main threat in a modern air defense network. These include jamming which the F-35 apparently has a very good jamming system, and there is always the option of flying upside down in order to present the side of the aircraft that absorbs more of the radar's energy to the radar system if you happen to be carrying external weapons or fuel in order to limit your radar return.

[Van Disaster]

The UK will buy it because we don't currently have anything else to put on the somewhat pointless carriers we're building ( plus it's what, 1/4 BaE's aircraft? ). Meanwhile BaE and QuinetiQ ( or however you spell them ) seem to be doing a lot of work on drones, which would make rather more sense. The main issue is who are you intending to fight in the thing; anyone the UK has attacked with aircraft in the last 30 years couldn't bother anything we currently fly as it is.

But hey, politics is 1/4 of an aircraft project.

[Canopus]

@Vonar I am sorry but no aircraft can fly upside down for very long

SAM's are always radar guided so yes if you are being shot at with heat seekers, they are launched from a pursuing aircraft.

@Van Disaster there will be a naval Eurofighter soon. Atleast its planned.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Canopus

[Seret]

@Vonar I am sorry but no aircraft can fly upside down for very long

This is correct. Engine lubrication and fuel flow are generally only designed to work for a short period inverted.

SAM's are always radar guided so yes if you are being shot at with heat seekers, they are launched from a pursuing aircraft.

But this is not. All MANPADS and most point defence SAMs are IR. However, being relatively short-ranged they really only bother you at low altitudes. So they're a problem for ground-attack missions, but not so much for air superiority ones. It's generally only area-defence SAMs and AAA that are radar-guided.

[Seret]

( plus it's what, 1/4 BaE's aircraft? )

This is about the size of it. The UKs defence procurement policy is basically: whatever BAE wants, BAE gets.

[Van Disaster]

@Van Disaster there will be a naval Eurofighter soon. Atleast its planned.

Unless it can STO with a ski ramp - I guess that might be possible - it'd be no use on our carriers, they're not getting catapults... the govt blew £100m a couple of years ago deciding it was a bad idea to switch design to CATOBAR, so effectively someone got a juicy wedge of taxes for doing nothing. We're already committed to F-35B, which is starting to smell of the 1960s & F-111 at the moment, and one of the drivers was interworking with the USN so I guess that's the end of the matter. The RAF are going to want something to replace Tornado at some point too, at this point I'm hoping it's a drone just to avoid another bottomless moneypit. I also wish I could forget about all this, but my grandfather worked developing radar in WW2 and my dad worked on TSR2, so it's a bit habitual...

Thanks to govt policy since the 1957 defence review, Bae are all we have for indigenous defence contractors; as long as the UK is on the security council & committed to expeditionary military action they've got every govt over a barrel. And given they sold all their civil aviation business to Airbus around that jolly trip into Iraq, if we don't keep fighting people they'll go out of business - or at least merge themselves out of national interest.

Anyway I guess they could fit the second carrier for catapults - that was the plan a couple of years ago - and take Sea Typhoons, I hate to think of the cost & delays though.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The Eurofighter has a t:w ratio of greater than 1 so it could do pretty short takeoffs with a ramp.

[Canopus]

Unless it can STO with a ski ramp - I guess that might be possible - it'd be no use on our carriers.

Thats exactly what it does, atleast that's what it says on that picture i posted 2 pages earlier.

[flyin_ruski]

F-35 is already a done deal for the USA

[Van Disaster]

The Eurofighter has a t:w ratio of greater than 1 so it could do pretty short takeoffs with a ramp.

With a full strike package though? I guess I'll go read up on it.

[iDan122]

The F-35 will become the 2nd operational ST/VOV/L fighter in the world. It has better avionics, better stealth, better control systems and so on. It will be the next great fighter after the F 22