OK, we all know the F-22 and F-35 will replace the F-15, and the F-16 & F-18 respectively. We also know the F-22 is capable of supercruise- meaning it can reach Mach 1 without having to use it's afterburners.

The question I have is, will the F-35 also have supercruise?

Give that the F-16 and F-18 are low cost, and near equal performance alternatives to the slightly deadlier and way more expensive F-14 & F15- I'm just wondering if the F-35 will closely match the F-22 in overall performance, at a lower cost.


PS: With the recent addition of the A/F-18E & F SuperHornets, replacing the older hornet and (although I don't see why) the F-14, I'm wondering if the Navy is aware that they F-35 is supposed to replace the Hornet. I'm also wondering why the Navy isn't (so far) takign any orders for their own ATF... The F-23 is sitting right there, gathering dust. No R&D dollars needed- just slap on a sturdier landing gear, and call it a day.

Sorry, these are the kind of random thoughts that go through my head on a daily basis. The fact that the Navy chose the loser of the F-16 vs F-17 shootout, that made the Air-Force choose the F-16, because the Navy didn't want a single-engine fighter (understandable over water)- I'm at a lost that they'd seriously consider replacing the Hornet (And, by which they also replace the F-14) with the single engine F-35.

Is it that mean a fighter? Engine reliability, I'm sure has improved. But, not to the point that it can shake of a lucky AAA hit, or shrapnel.

Good thing we're fresh out of enemies capable of putting up a real (conventional, toe-to-toe) fight.

 

The F-18 is a colossal POS and we would have been better off to upgrade the 14. However the 18 is made in just about every state in the union and hence has an enormous political backing that the 14 didn't. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.

 

I'd have to ask an engineer about the possibility of supercruise for the F35. I know the first test bird STOVL F35 is about to roll off the moving assembly line.

The Navy is aware that the F35 will replace existing planes. Honestly, they will be better, though they are single engine and the Navy likes dual engines for obvious reasons. You have to remember the stealth factor, that's a big bonus.

The F35 will rival the F22's performance, but IMHO I think the F22 is unrivaled in performance by any plane on the market, even that Russian crap. The F35 is built for affordability, and that's why so many countries are in the game to get their hands on them.

As for it being mean, I think it is. I get to see the first CTOL take off every once and a while. Let me tell you, the full military power take off is awesome. The engine sounds like nothing else out there.

 

I don't know much about it since I'm a surface guy rather than airedale but, what I've heard is the F-35 JSF is going to replace pretty much all of the aircraft you mentioned across all branches of the military. Again, I'm not sure about this but that's what I've gathered from the few times I've had to ask questions and the articles I've read in All Hands. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Air Force, Marines, Navy. 3 different variations. CTOL, STOVL, Carrier variant.

 

With so few being built though, I see these planes as additions to, and not replacments for, the F-15, F-16, and F-18. The last thing I read said there were only orders for 163 F-35's, and a handfull of F-22's.

The navy retired the F-14 this year (I don't know if this includes their version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, called the F-14 "Bombcat"). Frankly, I don't know if they ever really developed the Bombcat, or if that was killed in planning.


F-23: Black Widow, Prototype. (On paper, this joker meets or exceeds the F-22. It'd be interesting to have seen the fly-off.





F-22 Raptor: (This joker is bad.... The "good" kind of bad.)

 

BigHersh, here's an article, many F35's to build.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/

 

Wow, that's quite a bit more than 160+.

Cool... I still think the Navy should develop the F-23 (or 22), and leave the F18 in it's #2 role. Rather than making the Hornet the #1 fighter, and having the F-35 compliment it. Although larger and more powerful, I still don't see the SuperHornet being better than the F-14, nor can it defend the fleet like the 14, since the super hornet can't carry the AIM-54 Phoenix, and can't track & shoot down six targets 100 miles away- simultaneously, the way the F-14 could.

While I'm sure the SuperHornet and F-35 will make a formidable team; when you have 5,000 heads and 95 planes on a carrier, I'd think the Navy would want the best defense possible. That would be one heck of an asset to lose.

 

Well my thoughts were that the F-35 would be a bit more expensive to build since they have a vertical take-off system, or did they scrap that feature?

I haven't seen much news on these things, I'm probably pretty behind on new information etc. so please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I'm building one right now.

 

The VTOL version, if I remember the article correctly, is the most expensive. About $55,000,000.00 per plane, if memory serves. Cheaper than an F-22, but almost enough to buy two F-16's...

That said, I'm glad the Boeing verson (X-32) didn't win... That's hard for me to say, because I like Beoing aircraft, and I know performance is more important than beauty- but that joker was ugly from every angle. The F-35 is pretty...

I think they need to find a way to stuff two engines in it.... Even if it's two F-18 engines. I don't like single engine aircraft, F-16 (Bad though it may be) included. If I were a pilot, I'd rather fly the F-4 Phantom into combat, than the F-16. Just find a way to put an M-61 Vulcan on it for me.

Imagine how bad-**** the F-4 Phantom would be with new (Even F-15 era, Pratt & Whitney F-100 Turbofan) jet engines, fly-by-wire avionics, and the radar and electronic systems available today.

 

This dude has some awesome pics on his site...

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircra...hts/index.html

Stumbled across him via Google Image search.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with your last statement BigHersh. The way wars are fought and the mission of the fighter is constantly changing. Also changing is the depth of the pockets that pay for these.

First off, the cost of the plane is one thing. Upkeep is another. Parts for specialized planes are expensive. One fighter for all three branches means more of the same parts produced which means each individual part is less expensive.

As far as slapping sturdier landing gear on the F-22, well it takes quite a bit more than that to make a decent carrier aircraft. The VSTOL version was designed for the Marines to replace our AV-8 Harrier's. Gotta be able to land at my FARP so I can refuel you and someone else can rearm you. FARP's require vertical takeoff and is a big part of the mission of the Marine Air Wing.

Ok, so they don't let me refuel them anymore now that I'm out. Ok, so they never let ME refuel them, but I got to haul the fuel. It's a glamouous job dang it!

I don't know if anyone caught it several years ago but Nova did an awesome special called "Battle of the X Planes" where they were allowed to go into the development departments of the two competitors for the JSF and film it all from start to finish. The catch was they had to turn all their footage over to the government at the end of the day and it was stored in a safe until the decision and announcement of the winner had been done. Then they got all their footage back and could produce their show. It was definately interesting how it all went. The plane that lost was butt ugly, but they had some cutting edge processes and technology. Only problem was they couldn't quite get it all put together in the time alotted. Problems with the production of the wing really hurt things. Then the fact that they had to remove the VSTOL parts to get it to the required speed when the YF-35 could take off vertically, fly the required speed, then land vertically all on the same flight. It was truely a good show and if your into this you might look to see if they ever put it out on DVD.

*edit* Hey, lookee here! -> http://shop.wgbh.org/product/show/9705

 

Adding better engines to the F4 Phantom is not the answer, a flying brick is still a flying brick, no matter how powerful the engines are. The F4 did not do any job well. It did quite a few adequately.
As for the XF-23, it was not built for multiple reasons. One of which is that due to it's design with all the curved surfaces, would have made it much more expensive to build. I also don't believe it had as stealthy a radar signature as the F-22.
Nothing I have read says the F-35 will have super cruise like the F-22.
The age of thousands of different aircraft is over. Way too expensive and as fast as technology changes, way too impractical.

 

In terms of it's overall capabilities, the F-18 is a very potent aircraft considering its age. You have to consider that these things were making strikes against targets over 20 years ago.

And as much as I like F-4s (my father is a retired Marine F-4 pilot) the F-18 runs circles around it.



Good trivia for both you and Stealth. Who else has seen an F-18 with thrust vectoring? I have.