Centurion-1 1,228 Posted November 22, 2013 I don't just think that the F-35 will necessarily be the best value for money, especially for smaller airforces like Norway. A larger, inherently more capable platform would probably bring more bang for the buck, even if it means that it is a Gen4++ with stealth features. And regarding the Raptor, it really does not make any sense to first build arguably and probably the best fighter of the day and then only build a little over a 100 of them and call it a day. Sure the F-22 is over the top expensive but wasn't the F-15 too back in the day? How much use would the F-15A had been if it had been built in Raptor numbers, never exported and never refined into the C or Strike Eagle? Stealth is great and all but there are always ways to find an aircraft, even if it just some guy in bush with a Mk1 Eyeball and a radio, or a 2000lb JDAM blowing up that enables you to deduce that there probably is a strike aircraft somewhere around. What I am getting at is that even if the JSF will probably not be detected with current air defence equipment it is in a world of shit if it located by other means, be it IRST or human spotters or just a lucky SOB in an obsolete fighter. So designing an aircraft that is an one trick pony is probably a bad idea, especially for the foreign users who do not have F-22s to escort the JSFs... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted November 22, 2013 Most people cannot readily identify the exact type of ordnance that blows up in their vicinity. The usual human response to that situation is shit pants and seek cover. Followed by more shitting of pants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted November 22, 2013 Stealth is great and all but there are always ways to find an aircraft, even if it just some guy in bush with a Mk1 Eyeball and a radio, or a 2000lb JDAM blowing up that enables you to deduce that there probably is a strike aircraft somewhere around. What I am getting at is that even if the JSF will probably not be detected with current air defence equipment it is in a world of shit if it located by other means, be it IRST or human spotters or just a lucky SOB in an obsolete fighter. So designing an aircraft that is an one trick pony is probably a bad idea, especially for the foreign users who do not have F-22s to escort the JSFs... If that's the case then the FA-18E/F is in a heap of **** having no stealth, less range, and being somewhat slower / less agile with a few tanks and bombs- suppose it can always jettison tanks turn and run. Not convinced the F-35 needs self escort - its a new A-A paradigm in some ways (if the tech works of course) - and can use this tech edge to execute the OODA loop with lethality against anything. Anyone that uses their own material as valid sources in a reference list (See Kopp scribble) is not something to take seriously (especially when I 've already seen the content of a lot of it). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+logan4 848 Posted November 23, 2013 Yes, that is true, Apachies took out 2 radar installations to begin. Only that other 106pcs of TLMC that were fired in the first our against AD, power plants, comm buildings, etc. out of 51 was in the 1st wave. In certain places you fight with what you have. You can ask the indians (natives) in america why they went with bows and lances against pistols, shotguns, mortats and guns of white men. Even the Ethiopians going against the tanks with lances, or the polish with cavalry against the tiger tanks in WW2. I guess people willing to defend their land will do what it takes regardless how slim their chance for success may be. If those Migs were sooo broken and useless in Serbia then really not understand why they had to be outnumbered by 5x-10x fold. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted November 23, 2013 Logan, the Polish lancers charging tanks is a myth. Anyway, that was said to happen in 1939. The Tiger I did not see service until 1942. I see your point, but the devil resides primarily in the details. MigBuster, that is an interesting thought about the self protection, but that is already a combat proven scenario. In 1991 two naval aviator from VFA-81 downed two Iraqi MiG-21s with their bomb load intact and still continued to the target and destroyed it. The whole "strike fighter" concept revolves around that. They don't call F-35 "Joint Strike Fighter" for nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted November 23, 2013 The ability to self escort became more viable with all aspect missiles - but you still need to put the target in the front 120 to get a shot off (with HMCS) - which gets more difficult close in so increases the likely hood you have to jettison everything. The F-35 has advertised capability to target aircraft 360 degrees - and in a stealthy configuration is clean so if it does need to turn (to get a better shot) it can do far better than with stores on the wings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted November 23, 2013 I agree totally. That is the ultimate refinement of the engagement I mentioned earlier. F-35 is going to be a game changer. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted November 23, 2013 This is a little off topic, but this whole thread has been wandering. I remembered reading an article years ago in "Air and Space" or similar publication. Well before the F-35 JSF the F-22 was designed with longevity in mind, with plans to expand it's war load in the future if so decided. When the F-22 was still in its early test phase they stated the plane was designed with extra software cabinets and if needed computers installed and mud moving gear could be added to it's war load and if needed once determined air superiority is gained weapons could be hung from the wings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted November 23, 2013 You would expect that to be done through software upgrades mainly - if everything uses a standard interface like mil-std-1760 then probably just a case of creating some pylons then testing. If hardware upgrades are needed it seems to be a case of remove boxes (Modules) and shove in some new ones - saw a great video of how the modules for the Radar in an F-16 would be replaced with new hardware (AESA radar) This was its touted loudout years back - ( AIM-9X currently not carried) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Julhelm 266 Posted November 25, 2013 The problem with the F-22 is that it was designed entirely around air to air combat and as such has a bay that is entirely inadequate for larger munitions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted November 25, 2013 The problem with the F-22 is that it was designed entirely around air to air combat and as such has a bay that is entirely inadequate for larger munitions. The plane was designed as the Gen X apex fighter plane, but the people behind it's design realized it would be a better sell if someday if Air Force and Defense officials wanted to it could carry air to ground munitions. It was designed with 4 hard points, so someday in the future it may carry munitions both in the inventory now and those not yet designed. The F-22 in testing has dropped some air to ground munitions. But the Raptor is a fighter, and the JSF-35 was designed from the get go as a strike fighter. Both are stealthy though, and I think that's all that matters they both will both do the missions that they were designed for very well. With stealth there are compromises that have to made. Is the JSF-35 going to be able to dog fight an SU family fighter? Yes, maybe, but not as well as the F-22, but that's why they have stealth so that fight doesn't happen. With the ever expanding budget issues with programs being retailored and or just cut, I think you may see an F-22 carry out airstrikes someday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
