Debate F/A-18 Super Hornet vs F-35 Lightning II

[MAKO69 186]

I think you are all missing the point about the F-104 (and possibly F-35) shortcomings, it's not about being a "bad" airplane or being a dangerous one to fly.

 

I once had an interesting discussion with former MFG F-104 pilots, to them, once you got the hang of it, it was a wonderful aircraft, when asked if it would have been able to perform it's task in combat situation, the answer was that, of course, it would have performed its duties, but the answer were already a bit less enthusiastic, and when asked if it was the plane they would have chosen for the task, none of them would have, one emphatically stating it was the last plane he would have chosen, and THAT is the damn point...

 

A combat aircraft that is considered by its pilots as a great aircraft but the last COMBAT aircraft they'd chose for the task at hand is certainly not a wise choice, a combat aircraft is not meant for being a joyride for pilots (not that it's how it was viewed by the pilots) but as a tool to fulfill a mission.

 

I feel the F-35 is the same thing, a compromise aircraft that is, indeed a great aircraft, and great in the limited role it was designed for, but a piss poor choice otherwise.

 

 

Let's see, in the US case, the use scenario in high threat (modern SAM, true C3I and a networked AF) scenario for the F-35 is the following :

 

Step 1 : The F-22 go in, get rid of scary SAM sites, C3I infrastructures and the bulk of the opposing Air Force.

 

Step 2 : The F-35 finally go in too, as a bomb truck and airspace policing plane, protected from the few surviving SAMs and lone enemy aircrafts by their limited stealth and number, still having the F-22 to cover the most dangerous tasks.

 

In that role the F-35 is perfectly adequate and will probably perform admirably.

 

 

Now, let's take a typical foreign customer which will use it not as the Low component of a High-Low mix, but as the only plane they have and for both air superiority, air policing and strike tasks.

 

As long as they face a low threat environment (little to no SAM, non-networked opposing air force, technologically inferior opposing aircrafts), they'll be king of the hill, nothing will touch them... just as would happen with modern F-16, F-18, Gripen, Rafale etc... for a fraction of the cost.

But low threat environment is not the reason why these countries buy the F-35, they buy it on the promise that it will perform in high-threat environments, now let's see how it performs in that context without US support...

 

Step 1 : The F-35 go in against modern SAM sites, a networked air force.

The limited stealth is mostly irrelevant against modern SAM, making the F-35 pay a high price to get rid of them.

The frontal stealth is next to useless against a networked enemy, making the F-35 no more dangerous to enemy aircrafts than an F-18 would have been, you don't obtain air superiority because most of your technological advantage is negated and you have less aircrafts than you should because of the unit cost.

 

Step 2 : There is no step 2, the F-35 is the only plane you had and you already lost most of them in Step 1, if you survived you don't have enough planes to pursue operations efficiently in an environment where you didn't get rid of SAMs entirely and never achieved air superiority.

 

 

 

The real operational danger of the F-35 is that it will give a sense of false security to the politics, to whom the plane has been sold as a golden bullet, and on that impression they might end up cutting military budgets to a point where a country is basically defenseless, or approve military interventions that puts them at a disadvantage, on the faith that their wonder plane will simply dominate the skies, when it will not.

Stop comparisons between the F-104 and F-35, there is a big difference. An F-104 in any form compared to an F-35 is like throwing a bullet. while the F-35 is the sniper who is BVR with a high powered .50 cal. sniper rifle. The 104 was forced on the fledgling NATO countries, oh well to bad so sad the price you pay for being on the "right" side of the wall. All the air arms that had the F-104 used them in their own ways, their own tactics, and even made their own upgrades to the planes. Good air forces can adapt and overcome, which is what they all did with the F-104. Now the F-35 may not fly as well as an F/A-18 Legacy, super hornet, F-16, Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F-22 or any other contemporary fighter plane, but keep in mind it was designed as a stealth aircraft first, and I'm sure it won't be a dump truck in the sky in a dog fight either. With a stealth strike fighter their has to be compromise in performance. I said it before Warfare is not Fair, you must cheat to get the advantage and win. If that means you have a strike fighter that was not meant to get in a dog fight, oh well. The F-35 is a stealth/strike fighter. Stealth above all else will help this plane complete it's missions its part of the whole package which includes tactics on how to employ such aircraft. It may not be invisible, but the radar signature of an F/A-18 ( Super hornet has stealth built in maybe not as much as the following, but still incorporates stealth), F-22, and F-35 is a hell of a lot smaller than all other fighters out there. Why get into a dog fight when a pilot can simply select a BVR missile and fire such missile at a plane(s) who's pilot has no clue he's about to meet his maker, then drop his smart mud moving gear, and head back without breaking a sweat from ACM. Sounds a lot better than bringing in a "Bomb Truck" and having to fly like a fool whipping the ponies down low trying to avoid radar, and if you get into a dogfight, have to drop your war load and fight to just retreat. What would you prefer your expensive pilots fly an F-104 or an F-35? The USAF will not be using the F-22 as an SAED plane for a long time, that's other planes job to include the F-35 when they come on line. Is the F-35 going to be the perfect strike platform, no. Will it do a great job of the missions it will be tasked, yes. Is it going to be a world beater dog fighter, no, it wasn't designed to be a dogfighter, that's the F-22's job. The whole philosophy with stealth technology is to "Work smarter not harder".

[+Brain32 265]

I think F-35 is a miss for smaller countries, it's definitely too expensive and high maintenance for pure air-policing and for supporting roles within the alliance(s) I think it's both, an overkill and too much of a risk due to it's value. I have no doubts it will be great but it definitely ain't going to be the best buy option...IMO

[Toryu 156]

 

I don't have to google for F-100, there has been F-100s in french Armée de l'air and they have been quite well appreciated.

Main issue was the drag chute that sometimes cannot deploy at all, and french pilots were very aware of the "danger" of the aircraft

(damaged spare parts as an example)

but that's off topic.

Out of 97 Huns of the Armée de l'Air, 43 were written off in accidents. That's 44.3%, which is larger than the loss-rate of german F-104s and pretty much corellates with the loss-rate of danish Huns.

 

 

Don't put F-35 and A-7 in comparison as they don't cost the same price, when things go wrong.

 

They both operate in a similar role - in the USN, the F-35C is the A-7's successer's successer.

 

 

EDIT : wrong about the F-104 : 5 losses for 15 F-104C operating during 8 months in 1965 at Da Nang.

It's the same ratio than German/Dutch/Belgian F-104G in Europe during total service time.

 

Two of those 5 losses were in a mid-air collision. 

 

F-104's SEA-performance narrated by someone who's actully been there (Tom Delashaw):

http://web.tiscali.it/F104-Starfighter/Zip.htm

 

 

I feel the F-35 is the same thing, a compromise aircraft that is, indeed a great aircraft, and great in the limited role it was designed for, but a piss poor choice otherwise.

 

Exactly my thoughts!

 

Whether the F-35 is just the right airplane or an overpriced pig, depends on the mission it is employed for. On many missions, a SH or even Legacy-Hornet might give you enough bang/buck. Some missions will require more of a technology-gap to scare those people that need to be scared...

[MigBuster 2,875]

@MB:

 

Doesn't the F-18 even have a mechanic back-up or electric direct-law in pitch? I'd have to dig into the books, but I vaguely remember having read something of the likes...

 

Looking at the manuals - The A-D does have mechanical linkages that provide backup control yes. The E/F does not have mech links though - that relies on quad redundancy and distributed cabling & actuators to get by.

 

Actually not too sure on the F-35 regarding mech back up  - last I saw it was just using a triple redundant network based on a 2008 variant of Firewire

Edited May 29, 2014 by MigBuster

[MigBuster 2,875]

 

Step 1 : The F-35 go in against modern SAM sites, a networked air force.

The limited stealth is mostly irrelevant against modern SAM, making the F-35 pay a high price to get rid of them.

The frontal stealth is next to useless against a networked enemy, making the F-35 no more dangerous to enemy aircrafts than an F-18 would have been, you don't obtain air superiority because most of your technological advantage is negated and you have less aircrafts than you should because of the unit cost.

 

Step 2 : There is no step 2, the F-35 is the only plane you had and you already lost most of them in Step 1, if you survived you don't have enough planes to pursue operations efficiently in an environment where you didn't get rid of SAMs entirely and never achieved air superiority.

 

 

 

 

Its probably not best to assume total doom based on wild speculation of RCS figures. I would agree an F-35 might not be the first in on a DEAD mission - but thats not related to poor stealth - more to do with maybe using some tactics to negate the opposition for example.

 

 

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/mald/

[MAKO69 186]

What's up with the old school fighter comparisons to gen 4,4+ and 5 fighters still, this is about the F-35 and F/A-18 Super Hornet not warbirds, which is what all the century series and cousins are. A Japanese zero is way more of a dog fighter than an F-14, well yeah, but the Tommy cat will splash the zero every time. Didn't you guys see the movie.

[Derk 265]

What's up with the old school fighter comparisons to gen 4,4+ and 5 fighters still, this is about the F-35 and F/A-18 Super Hornet not warbirds, which is what all the century series and cousins are. A Japanese zero is way more of a dog fighter than an F-14, well yeah, but the Tommy cat will splash the zero every time. Didn't you guys see the movie.

 Indeed, it did in "the Final Countdown" ........

[MAKO69 186]

Out of 97 Huns of the Armée de l'Air, 43 were written off in accidents. That's 44.3%, which is larger than the loss-rate of german F-104s and pretty much corellates with the loss-rate of danish Huns.

 

They both operate in a similar role - in the USN, the F-35C is the A-7's successer's successer.

 

Two of those 5 losses were in a mid-air collision. 

 

F-104's SEA-performance narrated by someone who's actully been there (Tom Delashaw):

http://web.tiscali.it/F104-Starfighter/Zip.htm

 

Exactly my thoughts!

 

Whether the F-35 is just the right airplane or an overpriced pig, depends on the mission it is employed for. On many missions, a SH or even Legacy-Hornet might give you enough bang/buck. Some missions will require more of a technology-gap to scare those people that need to be scared...

The F-35C is not the A-7's replacement. The F/A-18 Legacy Hornet was the replacement for the A-7. The F-35C will replace the Legacy Hornets and the older Super Hornets. The last A-7 squadrons were retired in 1991.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Its probably not best to assume total doom based on wild speculation of RCS figures. I would agree an F-35 might not be the first in on a DEAD mission - but thats not related to poor stealth - more to do with maybe using some tactics to negate the opposition for example.

 

 

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/mald/

 

Yes, because it's so much better to assume success based on gross exaggerations from the manufacturer and a government desperate on selling the plane to lower it's own unit price...

 

 

Look, for what it's worth the F-35 is a great choice for the US (inflated cost and teething problems notwithstanding) , it will be a great asset for Israel as well (they intend to use it in a manner well suited to its design), Italy, Japan, South Korea and the UK should have no real problem with it either (they'll use it primarily for its VSTOL features and/or as a primarily strike oriented asset, it might be overkill for Italy and Japan, but still, these countries will use it as one plane among others).

 

For Canada it's a stupid choice, it lacks the endurance for its main air defense role (but that's been a constant for Canada), and the benefits it brings in its secondary strike role are too small and come at too high a price considering how little (if ever) it will be used in that role.

 

For Australia, again a lacking choice, it is barely adequate in its air defense role and lacks range in its long range strike role.

 

For Norway and Netherlands, it's an inferior choice for it's main role as an air policing asset, which costs forces them to have a smaller, less competent force, all this for a theoretical advantage in its secondary role that will materialize only in scenarios those countries almost never participate...

 

For Turkey the plane itself is irrelevant, the F-35 procurement is above all a political status symbol and as such will perform admirably, politics is the only dimension that matters in that particular case.

 

 

Any country buying the F-35 as its main air defense asset is making a costly mistake, it's not a fault of the aircraft though, it's not the hammer's fault if its owner's using it to hammer screws.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Supposition. There is no proof of this. What stealth planes have performed against a modern SAM system in combat to date? If it has happened, no one is telling. So how can you sit there and say "this is what will happen"?

 

The F-117 shoot down is not relevant because it was an usual set of circumstances combined with poor planning and there are no other instances on unclassified record.

 

By your logic, no one ever need to go to war again because we can plot out on paper exactly how things will go, so when tensions rise one side can just say "hey, I clearly win" and call it a day. The US can just retire its entire military because we have the most money to spend and say "hey, should we fight you, we can afford to make more and better stuff, so just give up now" and the other side will obviously have no choice but to go along with this.

Indeed, suppositions, and what do you think the optimistic estimates are ? Suppositions as well...

 

No one ever got the best result by just assuming that everything will be rosy and work as expected, always prepare for the worst-case scenario, and in that worst-case scenario the F-35 is simply NOT the right tool for the job for at least a third of the buyers...

 

It doesn't matter that a Bugatti Veyron is the fastest and most luxurious car money can buy, when what you have to do is haul a family of 5 and their luggage, there are cheaper and better alternatives.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

The F-35C is not the A-7's replacement. The F/A-18 Legacy Hornet was the replacement for the A-7. The F-35C will replace the Legacy Hornets and the older Super Hornets. The last A-7 squadrons were retired in 1991.

 

Thats exactly what Toryu said, the "F-35C is the A-7's successer's successer"s

The reason I brought the A-4, A-7, F-8 and F-16 into the discussion is because someone mentioned being single engined asa handicap to the F-35, I was just pointing out it wasn't a big deal for the aformentioned legendary aircraft. 

As for being a poor choice in Canada and Australia as an air defence asset because of range issues, I don't see the argument since the operational radius of an F-35 is greater than the F/A-18's it will be replacing. For places such as Norway or the Netherlands where air policing is the main concern I would agree, something along the lines of the Gripen or Typhoon would seem to make more sense.

 

Craig

 

Edited May 30, 2014 by MigBuster

[JediMaster 451]

The only point I can agree on is that of every promise made about the F-35 program, the one it has consistently failed to deliver on (and most likely never will) is price.

 

I remember the "$30 million/each" estimates back when the F-22 was going to be $100m/each. For various reasons, not least of them being gov't incompetence and corporate greed taking advantage of that, the F-35 is way too expensive for what it was supposed to cost.

 

Of course, it's new. The price per unit is still declining. The Super Hornet is not new, and like the F-16 and many other planes before it costs more now than it did after it started production because there are no more efficiencies left to find, orders are not increasing anymore, and they entered production decades ago! Now, does every nation looking to buy one actually need this plane? That's up to them to decide.

 

Your statement about the Bugatti is not incorrect. What is incorrect is your assumption that the mission is just to haul a family of 5 and their luggage. Even if that's the mission 75% of the time, what about the other 25%? That Toyota Sienna looked a bargain until you try to win the auto show, or race a car from the stop light, or any of a dozen other possible scenarios where a Bugatti will come out on top.

 

Now fighter jets aren't civilian cars, so the analogy quickly breaks down because frankly there is nothing a Bugatti can do that a minivan can't do, because while the Bugatti costs extra just to look and ride nice, it doesn't actually do anything else. If it's a Ford Pinto or a Model T or a Ferrari F40, they all just take people from A to B.

 

A combat aircraft has a far wider range of possible missions, and each candidate can do different ones to differing degrees, but just because there are 10 choices that CAN drop a bomb on a given target, they are not all equally capable in a given threat environment and theater of doing it successfully. Again, that's up to the country using them to decide.

[MAKO69 186]

Thats exactly what MigBuster said, the "F-35C is the A-7's successer's successer"s

The reason I brought the A-4, A-7, F-8 and F-16 into the discussion is because someone mentioned being single engined asa handicap to the F-35, I was just pointing out it wasn't a big deal for the aformentioned legendary aircraft. 

As for being a poor choice in Canada and Australia as an air defence asset because of range issues, I don't see the argument since the operational radius of an F-35 is greater than the F/A-18's it will be replacing. For places such as Norway or the Netherlands where air policing is the main concern I would agree, something along the lines of the Gripen or Typhoon would seem to make more sense.

 

Craig

 

Wait are you Toryu too? Anyways I miss read, my bad. As for the planes you mentioned you were just making a valid point with those. My beef was comparing the F-104 to the F-35.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Are you really missing the point ?

 

Do I really have to explain why choosing the wrong tool for the job at the cost of procuring less of them is not a good solution (in the F-104 case, it was the wrong tool but at least it was compensated by the fact A LOT of them were procured).

 

The less aircrafts you have, the more crippling a loss is.

The less aircrafts you have, the quicker it will age and/or the less training your pilots get.

The less aircrafts you have, the less aircrafts you can get in the air at any given time.

The less adapted to it's main mission an aircraft is, the more planes you need in the air to fulfill the same mission.

 

Norway and the Netherlands are placing themselves in a situation were it would be simpler and less costly to simply abandon their air force altogether, with their current plans in a decade they'll be where Switzerland currently is, forced to operate minimal hours, reduce training and be on the verge of not being able to fulfill its mission in a credible manner.

 

Of course some would say that the F-35 is more survivable and less maintenance intensive than alternatives, increasing its availability and thus making fewer planes as efficient, and that is partially true, however there is little chance that the increase in survivability and availability are in the vicinity of what is needed to compensate for the very small fleets (by some estimates the F-35 gains make it up to 1.5x as efficient, but they cost 2x to 3x time as much...).

 

 

Now, concerning Australia and Canada, it is true that it has indeed better range than the Hornet (and AFAIR the Super Hornet), however that range increase comes at the cost of a smaller air-to-air payload in air defense role (which would mean the need for more planes etc...).

It is also true that for decades Canada made do with planes falling very short of their needs anyway.

 

 

The curse of the F-35 is that its cost progressed faster and further than its gains in operational advantages, making it a poor choice for anyone not being able to afford a large fleet and intending to use it as their main or only asset.

 

Is that so hard to understand ?

[MAKO69 186]

Are you really missing the point ?

 

Do I really have to explain why choosing the wrong tool for the job at the cost of procuring less of them is not a good solution (in the F-104 case, it was the wrong tool but at least it was compensated by the fact A LOT of them were procured).

 

The less aircrafts you have, the more crippling a loss is.

The less aircrafts you have, the quicker it will age and/or the less training your pilots get.

The less aircrafts you have, the less aircrafts you can get in the air at any given time.

The less adapted to it's main mission an aircraft is, the more planes you need in the air to fulfill the same mission.

 

Norway and the Netherlands are placing themselves in a situation were it would be simpler and less costly to simply abandon their air force altogether, with their current plans in a decade they'll be where Switzerland currently is, forced to operate minimal hours, reduce training and be on the verge of not being able to fulfill its mission in a credible manner.

 

Of course some would say that the F-35 is more survivable and less maintenance intensive than alternatives, increasing its availability and thus making fewer planes as efficient, and that is partially true, however there is little chance that the increase in survivability and availability are in the vicinity of what is needed to compensate for the very small fleets (by some estimates the F-35 gains make it up to 1.5x as efficient, but they cost 2x to 3x time as much...).

 

 

Now, concerning Australia and Canada, it is true that it has indeed better range than the Hornet (and AFAIR the Super Hornet), however that range increase comes at the cost of a smaller air-to-air payload in air defense role (which would mean the need for more planes etc...).

It is also true that for decades Canada made do with planes falling very short of their needs anyway.

 

 

The curse of the F-35 is that its cost progressed faster and further than its gains in operational advantages, making it a poor choice for anyone not being able to afford a large fleet and intending to use it as their main or only asset.

 

Is that so hard to understand ?

Who is this directed to?

 

I personally could care less about the other users of the F-35 that's on them. As for the other air arms who are going to get or contemplating to acquire the F-35 in any form It's on them to decide how to employ it, but for us it will be a strike fighter 1st and an air defense fighter 2nd. It may not have the best range, best performance, best war load, but its a stealthy plane that's the key ingredient all the other planes would out perform the F-35 in a conventional fight or fly off, but that wasn't what it was designed to do! It was designed to be really hard to detect so it can fly around drop bombs or shoot missiles at other planes, not to fight its way in drop its load and fight it's way out. It was designed to cheat which works for me.

 For the US the JSF-35 will be a Joint Strike Fighter, a cog in the giant war machine that will have the support to carry out it's intended missions.  I just want my guys to have the very best tools to complete their task and get home safely. Is that so wrong?

[MigBuster 2,875]

 

 

 

 

Yes, because it's so much better to assume success based on gross exaggerations from the manufacturer and a government desperate on selling the plane to lower it's own unit price...

 

 

 

 

If you actually look and compare the shaping on the 35 to the 22 there is actually quite a bit there - even the cylinder nozzle has LO properties ( See F-16 LOAN) - so I would happily say its true Stealth Fighter - considering 80% of VLO is supposed to be shaping.

 

 

 

For Canada it's a stupid choice, it lacks the endurance for its main air defense role (but that's been a constant for Canada), and the benefits it brings in its secondary strike role are too small and come at too high a price considering how little (if ever) it will be used in that role.

 

 

 

You are way off - lets look at potential range shall we 

 

F-35A

internal fuel = 18,250 lbs

USL Thrust Mil = 25,000 lbs

 

F-15E

Internal fuel = 18,642 lbs (with CFTs)

USL Thrust Mil = 35,600 lbs 

 

Now consider the 35 can be clean and still be useful - please tell us how you are coming to the conclusion of poor endurance!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

For Australia, again a lacking choice, it is barely adequate in its air defense role and lacks range in its long range strike role.

 

 

 

If you had done any research into the F-35 you would see how ludicrous the above statement is - trust me its more than adequate for A-A.

 

 

 

For Norway and Netherlands, it's an inferior choice for it's main role as an air policing asset, which costs forces them to have a smaller, less competent force, all this for a theoretical advantage in its secondary role that will materialize only in scenarios those countries almost never participate...

 

 

 

Potentially true on cost grounds - but debate-full as the costs are rarely clear or known. You could argue whats the point of wasting money on an air force if it retains obsolete aircraft with outdated tactics - for one thing the pilots would drop a legacy for F-35 without blinking.

btw both of these countries have contributed to international conflicts recently (not air policing) - so you have no argument.

[macelena 1,070]

F@#k this, i´m getting an X-Wing

[Evildeadmeat 153]

   I just can't understand why Canada, Norway and Australia want to get F-35. I maybe be wrong but I think JAS-39 would be a better choice. An small all-around aircraft which is not perfect of course but would do anything Norway needs to do (mainly air policing in fact). IMO, F-35 doesn't fit with the RNoAF missions. Netherlands and Denmark are in the same case.

   Australia and Canada are both large countries, far larger than Norway (and Netherlands of course). For those air forces, the need for a long-legged aircraft seems obvious but F-35 doesn't seem to be the better choice. Do Canada really need an stealth aircraft? Really? And Australia? Basically, a stealth aircraft is needed at the very start of a conflict when you need to reach air superiority but you also have to deal with high SAM threat. In such a conflict, Canada and Australia wouldn't be sent to perform some kind of modern alpha strike. In fact, there are very few countries still able to perform such strikes. That's why I'm not really sure F-35 is a suitable aircraft for what Australia and Canada need to do.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

 

Now, concerning Australia and Canada, ... however that range increase comes at the cost of a smaller air-to-air payload in air defense role (which would mean the need for more planes etc...).

 

Simply not true.

Internal load = 2 x IRM & 2 x BVRM AND whatever you want to hang under the wings, it can easilly match the Hornet.

If the earlier portion of the post was directed at me and not understanding how the F-104 was the wrong tool for the job then go back and read each of my coments again, clearly I state the 104 was missused by the majority of its operators and thus does not deserve its poor/pilot killer reputation.

 

Craig 

 

PS.

 

Wait are you Toryu too? 

 

Umm nope....

Edited May 30, 2014 by fallenphoenix1986

[MigBuster 2,875]

Simply not true. Internal load = 2 x IRM & 2 x BVRM AND whatever you want to hang under the wings, it can easilly match the Hornet.

If the earlier portion of the post was directed at me and not understanding how the F-104 was the wrong tool for the job then go back and read each of my coments again, clearly I state the 104 was missused by the majority of its operators and thus does not deserve its poor/pilot killer reputation.

 

 

I just love public perception - remember a time when we sent a force to the South Atlantic that included slow, heavily outnumbered short legged SHARs that could only carry 2 x AIM-9s each. - not saying it was ideal - but that aerial combat includes a lot of factors.

 

 

 

From Block 4 the F-35 is supposed to be able to carry 6 x AIM-120 internally - will see if that happens......

[+malibu43 142]

Just throwing my 2 cents in here, full of generalizations and lacking any actual data...

 

The F-35 might not be cost-effective and could be "overkill" for the job we're expecting it's potential customers to need it to perform 98% of the time (air policing, current conflicts in the Middle East and Asia, etc...).  But if/when "WWIII" breaks out, all those potential customers no longer need to worry about just intercepting hijacked airliners or dropping bombs on 4 guys behind a rock.  The other 2% of the time has now arrived, and the concern is now taking on other Gen 4+/5 fighters and penetrating advanced SAM/air defense networks and the F-35 is looking a lot better compared to an F/A-18E.

 

Let's not be too short sighted... 

 

...and, at the very least, it is a deterrent.

Edited May 30, 2014 by malibu43

[MigBuster 2,875]

   I just can't understand why Canada, Norway and Australia want to get F-35. I maybe be wrong but I think JAS-39 would be a better choice. An small all-around aircraft which is not perfect of course but would do anything Norway needs to do (mainly air policing in fact). IMO, F-35 doesn't fit with the RNoAF missions. Netherlands and Denmark are in the same case.

   Australia and Canada are both large countries, far larger than Norway (and Netherlands of course). For those air forces, the need for a long-legged aircraft seems obvious but F-35 doesn't seem to be the better choice. Do Canada really need an stealth aircraft? Really? And Australia? Basically, a stealth aircraft is needed at the very start of a conflict when you need to reach air superiority but you also have to deal with high SAM threat. In such a conflict, Canada and Australia wouldn't be sent to perform some kind of modern alpha strike. In fact, there are very few countries still able to perform such strikes. That's why I'm not really sure F-35 is a suitable aircraft for what Australia and Canada need to do.

 

 

JAS-39 is a good aircraft and countries will obtain jets like that who cant afford or don't have access to the F-35.

 

Aus/Canada feel the F-35 is the best for them and it will allow them to integrate easier with close allies such as the UK & US.

[Toryu 156]

 

My beef was comparing the F-104 to the F-35.

Why? They were both bought for one mission: Strike. They both suffer from the same illness: Overladen with cutting-edge technology that nobody has experience with...yet!

 

The other missions (A-A, recce) were just incorporated to the aircraft to keep the cost down.

A good chioce to go "multi-role" with a limted airframe? Not necessarily!

Is it doable? Yes! Especially with the technology we have available today (JDAM, JSOW, advanced IIR missiles, etc.)

 

The F-104 was an airframe that compromised a lot for pure speed, while the F-35 compromised a lot for the F-35B "lifting-fan" version. Not entirely similar cases, but very much comparable.

 

 

Do I really have to explain why choosing the wrong tool for the job at the cost of procuring less of them is not a good solution (in the F-104 case, it was the wrong tool but at least it was compensated by the fact A LOT of them were procured).

The F-104 was (at least in Germany) bought for one mission: Getting a nuke as far as possible in bad weather and hitting the target with the maximal possible precision (first INS-application in a fighter). It excelled in this role - there was nothing else, in 1960, that could compare. Only later, when conventional warfare was the way to go, other aircraft would have been a better choice.

It didn't excell particulary well in A-A and Recce (In the Luftwaffe! The RCAF/ RNLAF had diferent Recce-gear that worked better), but that was due to a multitude of reasons and not only the fault of the aircraft.

 

The F-35 suffers from a similar problem: As long as it's special capabilities aren't needed (analogous to the F-104's nuke-delivery/ NAV capabilities), it is a waste of money. IF it's needed, it's a good card to play and nobody will have second thought about it.

[+Brain32 265]

Just throwing my 2 cents in here, full of generalizations and lacking any actual data...

 

The F-35 might not be cost-effective and could be "overkill" for the job we're expecting it's potential customers to need it to perform 98% of the time (air policing, current conflicts in the Middle East and Asia, etc...).  But if/when "WWIII" breaks out, all those potential customers no longer need to worry about just intercepting hijacked airliners or dropping bombs on 4 guys behind a rock.  The other 2% of the time has now arrived, and the concern is now taking on other Gen 4+/5 fighters and penetrating advanced SAM/air defense networks and the F-35 is looking a lot better compared to an F/A-18E.

 

Let's not be too short sighted... 

 

...and, at the very least, it is a deterrent.

 

In an event of WW3 they wouldn't be doing much really...

[MigBuster 2,875]

In an event of WW3 they wouldn't be doing much really...

 

Deterrents don't do much in peace time either  

 

 

Its only a conventional deterrent though - In WW3 I expect it has the amazing capability to take off and fly away if not caught in the blast.