Second gen F105 Thunderchief and Blackburn Buccaneer could or any other plane with internal bomb bay. On the other hand bomb bay(in case of F35 its more the sheer fuselage crossection due to VTOL variant) limits the aircraft to same preformance even after is unloaded. F35 is a great bomb truck but no fighter
Assuming you fat-fingered STOVL (so I'll let that pass) the increased cross section is almost exclusively due to internal carriage and a big freakin' engine in the middle. The idea the design is compromised by having a STOVL variant is a myth propagated by the ignorant who do not understand that ALL aircraft designs have tradeoffs. Resist ignorance. The Air-to-Mud mission AND the LO requirements are what drove the big design trade-offs in this case. There was a conscious decision to pursue internal carriage because of the need for low observability.
I forgot to add why I noted that F-22s are designed to operate in pairs -- this is important because many people claim we don't have enough. But, running in pairs rather than larger groups, the resource goes a lot farther. And augmented by F-35 awareness, it goes even farther.
If you defend the JSF for the right reasons i will let it fly... If it is a good replacement for the F-16/A-7 in the interdition role it will be nice... But it will kill the replacement of the Strike Eagle and the A-10... The statement in this post isnt real also:http://youtu.be/P4m4li6wwNw and http://youtu.be/OsjrBD99-iQ... Its just to expensive...and Israel just proved that stealht isnt a future feature... VHF radars might defeat the F-35 but not ECM:http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/01/israeli-ew/
Second gen F105 Thunderchief and Blackburn Buccaneer could or any other plane with internal bomb bay. On the other hand bomb bay(in case of F35 its more the sheer fuselage crossection due to VTOL variant) limits the aircraft to same preformance even after is unloaded. F35 is a great bomb truck but no fighter
ReplyDeleteAssuming you fat-fingered STOVL (so I'll let that pass) the increased cross section is almost exclusively due to internal carriage and a big freakin' engine in the middle. The idea the design is compromised by having a STOVL variant is a myth propagated by the ignorant who do not understand that ALL aircraft designs have tradeoffs. Resist ignorance.
DeleteThe Air-to-Mud mission AND the LO requirements are what drove the big design trade-offs in this case. There was a conscious decision to pursue internal carriage because of the need for low observability.
And yet all "manned" SIMs say otherwise even when outnumbered 2:1.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't need to be a dedicated fighter, just able to fight. And it can do that.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't it need to be a fighter? F-22s are designed to operate in pairs and will do fine to bridge the gap between now and this:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/darpa-working-on-sixth-generation-fighter-study-385112/
In the meantime, and in a pinch, the F-35's high off-boresight and low-vis capabilities with sting the hell out of aggressors.
Everything's okay folks.
I forgot to add why I noted that F-22s are designed to operate in pairs -- this is important because many people claim we don't have enough. But, running in pairs rather than larger groups, the resource goes a lot farther. And augmented by F-35 awareness, it goes even farther.
DeleteWe're creating packs. Not lone wolves.
Packs work.
If you defend the JSF for the right reasons i will let it fly...
ReplyDeleteIf it is a good replacement for the F-16/A-7 in the interdition role it will be nice...
But it will kill the replacement of the Strike Eagle and the A-10...
The statement in this post isnt real also:http://youtu.be/P4m4li6wwNw and http://youtu.be/OsjrBD99-iQ...
Its just to expensive...and Israel just proved that stealht isnt a future feature...
VHF radars might defeat the F-35 but not ECM:http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/01/israeli-ew/