Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Silverbolt

First Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing Stealth Fighter Unveiled At Lockheed Martin

Recommended Posts


A STOVL jet with the performance of an F-16 and stealth capability - not bad! - Best of all its not reliant on static runways!!

 

I suppose considering the Harrier was in service in 1969 this is the least we should expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USMC (definite), UK (likely but not certain), other Harrier operators looking to replace theirs (Italy? Spain? who knows?)

 

Don't forget there was a supersonic Harrier in development that was cancelled long ago, before the "Harrier II" we all now know (ie AV-8B/GR.5+) was in service).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MoD here is still umming and ah-ing about whether or not to purchase 8-12 STOVL variants for the new Canberra class flattops we'll be building. I personally hope so. Not replacing the HMAS Melbourne and losing the capability of an LHD/CV is the biggest mistake the MoD/RAN have made in the last 25 years. Although, getting suckered into buying the Seasprite was pretty suspect too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UK (likely but not certain),

Given the amount of money that's already been invested (we are the 2nd largest investor by far) I hope so as long as it meets the requirements.

It's to replace the Harrier in both the Royal Navy & RAF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's fairly certain. On the one hand, this is needed because thanks to delays since the early 90s there's no time left (or money) to develop something new. On the other, they bit off more than they should have with trying to make this one-size-fits-all medium fighter.

 

I'm a strong believer in not putting all your eggs in one basket. There's still no guarantee the GE engine will ever be produced for the F-35. Can you imagine a day 20 yrs from now where we have an F-15-style grounding because of the P&W engine...across a fleet of 2000 planes in the US alone? With nothing else but a handful of Raptors and Super Bugs and maybe some A-10s to cover???

 

Each service should've stuck with making their own plane for their own needs instead of giving every service something they DON'T need because the OTHER guys use it and making it the Joint Compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Each service should've stuck with making their own plane for their own needs instead of giving every service something they DON'T need because the OTHER guys use it and making it the Joint Compromise.

 

Is it me or are we starting to approach more Macnamara style (Think F-4, A-7, M16) joint comprimise money saving plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh there's no doubt that's what's happening here. The question is has the tech evolved to the point where you can make it work better now, or is everyone wasting their time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a strong believer in not putting all your eggs in one basket. There's still no guarantee the GE engine will ever be produced for the F-35. Can you imagine a day 20 yrs from now where we have an F-15-style grounding because of the P&W engine...across a fleet of 2000 planes in the US alone? With nothing else but a handful of Raptors and Super Bugs and maybe some A-10s to cover???

 

That's the problem we had with the previous government. They were going hell for leather in trying to put into place policy and directives that would see all of our Hornets and F-111s replaced with a single airframe simply because it would shave off several billion in 15-18 years. When I worked at ASPI, we had a sh*t of a time trying to convince them that this would also shave of a lot of capability and increase the risk of design/engineering flaws potentially grounding the entire fleet and potentially the RAAF's offensive capability. Hopefully the new government will grasp the two tiered force structure concept, although in the past, neither the coalition nor the ALP have been too bright concerning defense matters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- good point on Mc's TFX concept...the F-35 is a little different in that there are variations within a common airframe, but you are right in that it is a compromise. When you include the fact that we have been living off 1970 and 1980 era appropriations, the unwillingness to go to full tilt is especially troublesome. Its like driving the same car for 40 years, then instead of saying now is a good time to flush some new life into American Industry, lets just buy a used car (see not-so-Super Hornet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that Cananda might be getting some of there puppies... I hope so.

 

Its good that there's finally a new and innovative fighter coming out. I heard that the air force version will have a fuel cell or bomb bay where the fan is on the vertical takeoff version.

 

Am I the only one who's glad that they didn't choose boeing's entry?

post-28461-1199226466_thumb.jpg

uuuuuggg-lee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard that Cananda might be getting some of there puppies... I hope so.

 

Its good that there's finally a new and innovative fighter coming out. I heard that the air force version will have a fuel cell or bomb bay where the fan is on the vertical takeoff version.

 

Am I the only one who's glad that they didn't choose boeing's entry?

post-28461-1199226466_thumb.jpg

uuuuuggg-lee!

It does look bad,don't it :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the "F-32" would've looked different. That design was found to be wanting in carrier-landing regimes for tail authority and it would've had a conventional tail, as you can see here:

Boeing_JSF_X-32_on_tarmac.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard that Cananda might be getting some of there puppies... I hope so.

 

Its good that there's finally a new and innovative fighter coming out. I heard that the air force version will have a fuel cell or bomb bay where the fan is on the vertical takeoff version.

 

Am I the only one who's glad that they didn't choose boeing's entry?

 

uuuuuggg-lee!

 

No, you are defenatly not the only one.

 

Jedi. It still looks ugly. :biggrin:

Edited by MannieB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, it looks a bit like the A-7...and nobody should say anything bad about it. :wink:

 

Yeah, now that I take another look , it does look a bit like a very updated A-7 :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually saw it on a stop over flight (more like a weird kind of advertising, really)...it was not only ugly, but it just didnt instill confidence. A good airplane's aesthetics should convey an appropriate image to its driver...like the Tomcat, it looks like a plane that will do anything, and bring her crew back. Reference the Double Ugly, she looked evil sitting still and winked at you that she loved to kill. Or even take the venerable T-37, it says "let's go and leave the flying to me".

 

This thing looked, well...needy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..