Comments on: Advanced STOVL Now Flying

By: reshtet

reshtet — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:39:38 +0000

Why get all out of shape over a plane you don’t
work on or fly?Its just like people arguing over
whose the best SOF unit…And copy every article and book in existence,and then trouble veterans…

By: reshtet

reshtet — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:36:30 +0000

HAHA!JSF also means’Java Server Faces.‘Therefore
CTR1 might be the one hacking me,from military.com
and strategypage.com and NSC…Especially from Yahoo.com…

By: RSF

RSF — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:38:37 +0000

While the F-35B STOVL is groundbreaking in many areas, that sad fact is that without a F-22 Raptor to fly cover, it will be vulnerable to the latest versions of the Flanker. Its less sophisticated stealth design can be seen by the latest Russian radar systems. It AESA radar does not have the range to fight an advanced Flanker in a BVR fight. In a visual dogfight it will be outclassed by the thrust vectoring engines and helmet cued weapons of the SU-30 through SU-35 aircraft. With 180+ Raptors trying to fly cover for hundreds of JSF, we are going to come out on the losing end of any large scale conflict (like a fight over Taiwan).
RSF

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:27:34 +0000

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m36/InfoLandsknecht/Macros/
internet_serious_mf_business.jpg

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:26:30 +0000

“I have enjoyed having some intelligent discussions on this topic.“
Me too, MC513.
I hope I wasn’t too much of a jerk to start off, but any F-22/F-35/Osprey thread tends to bring out the Eurodouches (Oh, stealth is WAY overrated! The ten-twelve Eurofighters we have on the entire continent could easily annhilate your pathetic Raptor squadrons…etc) and the Larouchie Ron Paul maniacs that somehow work the Bilderburghers and Jews into any topic (OBVIOUSLY the F-35 is being built to appease AIPAC and throw the US into war with Iran…yadda yadda yadda). So I tend to shoot first and ask questions later.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m36/InfoLandsknecht/Macros/internet_serious_mf_business.jpg
See ya…

By: MC513

MC513 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:53:35 +0000

Brad: I agree with your post. I am excited that we are getting a replacement that is steathly and more capable against enemy aircraft.
I also agree that the Osprey has effectively out classed its escorts. Reminds me of the WWII bomber campaign prior to the introduction of the P-51.
So I think I have beat the horse enough on this topic.
Just want to thank everyone for their input. I have enjoyed having some intelligent discussions on this topic.
Take it easy.

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:32:51 +0000

MC513, while I sympathize with some of your reservations — the V/STOL does reduce operational capability, that is real — the F-35 is a high performance stealth fighter. Even at 70% capability, it is more than capable of tangling with the world’s best fighters today and up-and-coming fighters like the Eurofighter and the Sukhoi series. The old Harriers could not stand against even the MiG 21, 23 series or the F-5s when it was designed. It was an attack plane through and through.
Having 6–20 F-35s per ARG (think six unless in time of full conventional war) gives the fleet extraordinary capability we’ve never had before, possibly four extra supercarriers worth.
Besides, with the V-22, the mission of that platform is over-the-horizon deployment; from the Mediterranean and into Damascus, for instance. THis is different from our current generation of helicopters which can deploy only out to sixty-hundred miles or so with cover from escorts and before needing to return. As there is no possibility to attach as escorts Cobra Zulus to a Osprey unit, the need for organic strike support is actually much greater. It’s the only way to zap AAA and SAM batteries, or enemy fighters, which could menace the cargo package.
Plus in any large mission, a Carrier Battlegroup or two will likely assist, as well as another possible ARG or two; you are looking at perhaps 140 first-rate fighters (stealth, too!) against any air defense grid and air force. Coupled with long-range bomber support, electronic attack, long-range fighters like Raptors from Europe, Japan, Diego Garcia, hell, Texas too, and there are very few, if any, national militaries that could contest that amount and sophistication of force.
AND with the Small Diameter Bomb (the F-35B can carry up to 8 internally and possibly another 20 + externally), that single stealth F-35 will be able to do the same job as a dozen multirole fighters even as recently as 2003 (think: no electronic attack support, no fighter support, up to 30 accurate bombs). This really is a powerful capability.

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:24:33 +0000

Yep — you pay a price in weight for the VSTOL capability, which in turn impacts performance, range, and payload. Still, that VSTOL capability can be useful — certainly the Marines, the RAF, and the RN are convinced. The F-35B drive shaft technology also enables some really interesting future development. It’s possible to drive a powerful generator off the same type of shaft to operate electronic warfare equipment or directed energy weapons.

By: MC513

MC513 — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:05:41 +0000

DA:
One more thing on a related note:
I am for the V-22 for the same reasons I am against the F 35B. The V-22 has better performance overall. I am not sure about its survivability in combat though..but at the very least, it is faster and has better range\payload.
The only real advantage to the 35 B is it can operate from LHD\LHA’s. No offense to the small\rough field crowd, but outside of carrier qualified landing gear, we don’t build “tough” aircraft like the Russians.
Maybe I am totally wrong on the B model. I hope so. But once it is in the air, I would rather fly the A or C model.
Just my .02 .

By: MC513

MC513 — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:46:48 +0000

DA:
I like the OnStar concept and the F35 in general.
As far as cost benefit, that is probably up for some change just based on every other military procurement program that is vetted through Congress and new Administrations with new agendas.
I am UNHAPPY with the STOVL version for reasons I already specified.