F15Cricket

1. I wouldn't know.
2. Agreed. The F-22 / F-35 mix will be like the F-15 / F-16 mix. Lots of Eagle air-to-air kills (104:0!) and a few Viper kills (for those few bandits that get through). A great complimentary team that I think the Raptor / Lightning will be for the next generation ... Once the F-35's bugs are worked out and it is flying at its full capability.

rickair7777

We can no longer afford dedicated fighters or tactical strikers. And there's good reason to combine them...

Typical scenario:

Step 1: Forced entry: Need fighters to help kick the door in and gain air superiority. Once that's done there is *typically* a low demand signal for air superiority fighters.

Step 2: Beat them into submission. This requires strikers and lots of them.

We can't afford 600 dedicated high-end fighters for step 1, which will wallow in glory for 48 hours and then sit mostly idle for months on end while 1000 strikers roll up the JTL.

The only affordable option is switch hitters which are adequate in both roles.

Grumble

1. Oh look he's level two circle again, what shall I do?

2. Comparing a 16 to the 35 is a serious insult to the 16. If the 35 is playing goalie for the raptor, we're all F'd and just start drinking.

The F-35 struggles to be adequate at just getting in the air.

UAL T38 Phlyer

For $1.4 Trillion, you get a modern F-4....except the F-4 could carry up to 11,000 lbs of stores.

Agreed. Block 50-60 Vipers and C/E/F Hornets are more than "adequate." They're still really good, despite origins in the 1970s.

The problem has always been: all eggs were placed in the Stealth Basket for this disaster. It compromised aerodynamics (bulky fuselage for internal weapons carriage), which led to all the other problems: non-bubble canopy to reduce drag; requires fancy EO system to check 6; doesn't work; helmet doesn't really fit narrow canopy. Bulky fuselage makes lots of unpredictable lift at high AoA; get wing roll-off; limit g and AoA for even more mediocre performance. Still too draggy, range compromised, more gas, now too heavy for wing area to maneuver like a 5th gen fighter. Take out "non-essential" stuff to make it lighter in pointless bid to make the performance seem better, such as self-sealing tanks, hydraulic fuses, THE GUN....

And worst of all, the radar cross section (which I once read, I believe in Aviation Week, was to be 10% of an F-16), is instead 90% of an F-16.

And, since the design was hacked multiple times by China, and China has fielded a new portable radar that works in a new UHF frequency range, has probably negated most of its "stealthiness."

For the same money, I'd rather get 3-4 Vipers or 2-3 Hornets.

Plus, in a BVR ROE war, the thing only carries two Air-Air missiles.

Good luck with that.

Yoda2

Our country, the US, possesses the resources to accomplish just about anything it wants, needs or desires; including items/projects related to national defense. What serves as an impediment to progress, in this area of discussion, is not so much funding, as a system that is flawed. We pursue way too many projects that should not have made it beyond the napkin sketch, much less the drawing board. Thousands of executives, managers, engineers, technicians and support personnel go to work each day knowing they are involved in some boondoggle. I have had to do it as well, as there are mouths to feed and bills to pay. The only practical choices one has are to hold your nose, keep your head down and play along, or leave. The biggest cause of runaway programs, is those with the power to effect positive change do not have the will, or are not making proper use of it. Unfortunately the folks, our leaders..., who can stop this insanity are a literal handful and have apparently no will or desire. We could easily have vastly more capable air assets [manned and unmanned], more folks employed in good jobs and at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers. Even if the F35 was the best thing since sliced bread, like many projects, the development time alone will likely relegate it to premature obsolescence.

1Seat 1Engine

It's OK as this thing is going to use F-16 drones as it's wingmen.

(yes, some sarcasm is implied)

rickair7777

For clarity, I'm not defending the F-35 as I have no reason to believe that it's adequacy/cost ratio is remotely rational. I'm defending the strike/fighter concept.

Yoda2

I figured that was your position; it's not a bad concept, though always results in significant sacrifices in both areas; at least with the technology that's been, and is being employed. Maybe we should have just updated the Phantoms stored at DM and saved a ton of money. Oh wait, I think we destroyed them all for target practice...

Adlerdriver

..........Of what?

Adlerdriver

Okay - I agree with your opinion - as long as the platform produced can really accomplish both missions. That itself is a whole other can of worms.

What hasn't been discussed in this thread yet is the limitation on the pilot side. Even if the platform is a stellar piece of equipment that is able to excel in either role, the ability to create a pilot who can excel at both missions is now and has been in the past, a major limitation. Guys can thump their chest and claim to be great at both, but usually reality is something a bit different.

A multi-role fighter may be a necessity due to economics and other factors, but there really isn't such thing as a multi-role pilot (if you want both jobs done as well as possible). We simply don't have enough training sorties, dollars or time to keep "multi-role" pilot's skills in both missions up to par. Single mission units would produce far better results, but I'm sure politics and economics will trump that.