Jims- Thanks.
I was part of the source selection panel for the F-22 vs YF-23... Scope change and politics play a large part of what is built...in theory with all the modeling, prototype and testing there should be a almost perfect platform...that isnt the case... Throw in funding problems on top and you have created a moving target at best....
The F-35A may never be the dogfighter that the F-16 is, but with stealth, that will be a non-issue in most encounters. I think the F-35C will be closer to the F-18 in performance, though the use of a single engine will always be a bit of a worry. The F-35B should be the real winner, superior to the Harrier in most regards. If the liftfan system is reliable, this will turn out to be clever design. And at least in the near-term, it will be the only supersonic VSTOL aircraft in the world. The only aircraft that the F-35 was supposed to replace which I think is an iffy proposition is the A-10. It can't carry as much ordnance or loiter low and slow like a Warthog. I think that the "Thunderpig" is likely to hang around for quite a few years yet.
I am curious if you know why GD said that? I thought the F15 replaced the F4 and because the F15 is too expensive to buy in large quantity, the AF wanted a smaller and cheaper fighter to supplement the F15 and therefore the LWF competition. That's what I remembered reading a very long time ago, unless my memory failed me. Thanks.
Ric- The LWF was supposed to be an air-to-air fighter slotted below the F-15 with simple avionics and mostly IR missiles. The F-4 was always a dual purpose attack/air-to-air fighter, originally without a gun, also doing the nuke mission. The F-15 was always an air superiority fighter nearly exclusively. Although it did have a capability to drop bombs, the F-15 was never employed in that role operationally. It assumed only the F-4's air-to-air role after VietNam showed the need for a pure air superiority platform. What GD meant was that their design would have been different from their little 9 g hotrod if they had known all the stuff the USAF would eventually want to carry on her. In essence, it was the F-104 all over again, except this time the platform was much more adaptable to all the changes wrought by the time the F-16C/D came along. Large, efficient after-burning turbo-fans provided part of that flexibility and allowed the much heavier later models to still maintain outstanding performance while weighted down with LANTIRN and follow on pods and large external loads of fuel and munitions. They also would have provided a different source for back-up power than the hypergolic hydrazine turbine fitted that guaranteed the F-16 would never land on a carrier. The F-16 ended up being a triple DOC aircraft doing conventional, nuke, and air-to-air design operational capability missions. The F-15 was single DOC.
There is what appears to be the discarded fuselage from a stealthy version of an FA/18 rotting away in the aircraft boneyard in Arizona. Obviously the idea must've been toyed with previously. The F35 program has come too far and they have poured far too much money into to cancel it now. Whether or not it will be an effective platform remains to be seen.
Very difficult to make a stealthy airframe out of a design where low observables were not an entering argument during the design process. Was tried on the F-111 and F-15 with measurable improvements, but nowhere near even a first gen LO aircraft like the F-117. The F-111 had RAM in the intakes from day one, but too many corner reflectors on the rest of the airframe, and the F-15 Silent Eagle has the same issues.
As Terry and others correctly point out in several posts above, the F-16 was originally intended to be a day, VMC air-to-air only machine. It evolved over a very long lifespan into an all weather, day or night, fighter-bomber. It was, and is, a Jack of All Trades and Master of All, actually. In terms of broad-spectrum war-fighting capability, the F-16, F-15E, and F-18 are still treasured assets. The F-35 is getting there fast. The Lightning is going through all of the expected growing pains of any new weapon system. Ten years from now, when my kids are flying it, it will be doing things we never imagined, and doing them very well...including beating Vipers in BFM!
As my late WWII Army Air Corp. vet grandfather would say, "from your mouth to god's ears." I really hope you're right. I have undying faith in our country's ability to turn out amazing pieces of engineering, amazing aircraft....when given the funding and opportunity. I don't have the same faith in our government to make that happen. Mark
Funding or not, opportunity or not, developing an entirely new airframe in the current era is a difficult job. And public or private most of the world seems to be having difficult delivering one on time and on budget (cough 787, A380). Plenty of other countries have similar issues with massive project - it's something we need to improve on greatly. Regarding the JSF - management private and public is the issue. It was years behind a decade ago - to not admit that there was no way of fixing it then is, charitably, incompetence. Not much different than Boeing rolling out the 787 with Home Depot fasteners and claiming everything was on schedule. I worked on a small portion of the program that was behind schedule (we were hired to replace a failed vendor). There was little impetus on to provide feedback on acceptability of replacement or, well, anything. Similar problems seem like they occured elsewhere. That's bad management.
I think congress just passed legislation authorizing research on Gen6 with the plan of having planes by 2030. Several nations are considering bypassing Gen 5, for Gen 6. Last human flown plane F35 and F22s? I suspect so. So by the time the Russians and Chinese have their Gen 5, we'll be onto Gen 6. B1 all over again. Art
