Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters

[Andrew]

The news seems to confirm opinions about the F-35 in recent discussions here, which was that it probably won't enjoy the superiority the F-16 and F-18 had when they were commissioned.

"THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department...Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear."

read more (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/not-so-stealthy-the-15b-fighters/2006/03/13/1142098404532.html)

US and UK clash over fighter jet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4807710.stm)

[IDonT]

Ahhh, UK and Australia are crying foul over their dumb down F-35s. Who could blame them?

[Andrew]

IMHO, the US should have gone for a navalised F-22 and less carriers. No F-18F, no F-35. In terms of aerodynamic performance (agility, dash speed), these aircraft are in my view a step back from the older F-18s and the F-14.

It's interesting to see that the new carriers are going to be simply a neven larger version of what is around today. It somehow reminds me of the German tanks in WW II getting ever heavier and more costly to produce.

[IDonT]

IMHO, the US should have gone for a navalised F-22 and less carriers. No F-18F, no F-35. In terms of aerodynamic performance (agility, dash speed), these aircraft are in my view a step back from the older F-18s and the F-14.

It's interesting to see that the new carriers are going to be simply a neven larger version of what is around today. It somehow reminds me of the German tanks in WW II getting ever heavier and more costly to produce.

USN did have the A-12, the A-6's replacement, a fully stealth bomber.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12_1.jpg

Navalizing an airforce aircraft is a lot harder than doing it the other way. It involves more than just adding a tailhook to any aircraft. You have to add undercarriage strengthening, structural strengthening, anti-corrosive measures, etc, while ensuring the aircraft is not too heavy. Heavy aircraft will have "bring back" capability issues.

For example, the F-14 can carry 6 phoenix but its too heavy to land on a carrier with all 6 of them. So normally, between 2 to 4 are carried.
Popeye...your a navy ordinance guy. Shed some light on this.

[Kampfwagen]

Well, if they are only fifteen dollars, then you get what you pay for. :D

Personaly, I like the idea of the F-35 JSF being used as a VTOL, STOL interceptor, and not as a standard fighter/interceptor. I like the idea of a navalized carrier-borne F-22, but I imagine it might be dificult due to it's unorthodox design. The F-35 being of similar nature has an advantage in that it can be a VTOL/STOL (unless the design has somehow changed.)

Personaly, I would have prefered to stick to F-18 (or F-16, I know that only one of them has a navalized version) fighters, and possibly some carrier-borne F-35 VTOL/STOL short-range interceptors. The F-22 is a fine fighter, but I call to question the F-22's carrier capabilities. Less carriers isint a bad idea ether, considering that they are so darned expensive! But then again, more is better in some ways...Plus, we can definately be more intimidating that way. (Forgive my use of 'we', being american I have a very localized nature, which is a very bad habit.)

[walter]

IMHO, the US should have gone for a navalised F-22 and less carriers. No F-18F, no F-35. In terms of aerodynamic performance (agility, dash speed), these aircraft are in my view a step back from the older F-18s and the F-14.

It's interesting to see that the new carriers are going to be simply a neven larger version of what is around today. It somehow reminds me of the German tanks in WW II getting ever heavier and more costly to produce.

It would have been nice to see Navy F-22s, no doubt, but as usual interservice rivalry killed any chance of that. The Navy was looking at developing it's own next gen fighter, the A-12. That got killed in budget cuts and the F-22 design had already been finalized for USAF requirments. The USN didn't seem too interested in pursuing a navalized version after that.

As for the next carriers, my understanding is that they will be operated by far fewer personell(2000 vs. 5000 on today's carriers)--so much more autonomous operation, thus lowering operating costs. Perhaps that at the cost of initial procurement cost.

As to F-18E/F and F-35 vs. F-14 and F-18C/D:
On overall manoeuverability I would rank them:
1)F-18C/D
2)F-18E/F
3)F-35
4)F-14

Dash speed, well, I think the F-18 C/D models are the worst of the bunch, and the F-35 could rival the F-14.

But overall, the older models probably have an edge in aerodynamic performance, like you said. However, I don't think the USN strategy of retiring older, maintenance intensive, non stealthy ac is bad. They are getting good replacements that offer higher survivablity and reduced operating costs.

[Andrew]

It's a shame the A-12 didn't make it.

The crucial question in my view is: what is going to replace the F-14? When I first read about the JSF project many years ago I read that it was meant to replace not only the F-18 and the F-16 but also the A-10, the USMC Harrier and the F-14. And indeed, even though the F-35 may not formally replace the F-14 de facto this seems to be the case. Or is the F-18F assuming the role the F-14 had before while the JSF is going to fulfill the task of the older F-18 versions? So a revamped lo-tier aircraft design, which the F-18F really is in aerodynamic terms, is going to step in for the F-14? Can somebody englighten me?

The USAF should have enough punch to do the job of hunting down tanks, artillery positions and the like. The navy does not need a bomb truck but a truly superior aircraft which enables a carrier strike group to deal independently with the most sophisticated defences and capable of defending it from serious threats from air and sea. The stealthy, super cruise capable F-22 appears much better suited for this than both the F-18F and the JSF.

What do you think?

with kind regards
Andrew

[tphuang]

Ahhh, UK and Australia are crying foul over their dumb down F-35s. Who could blame them?
I'm confused here. I thought UK and Australia would be getting the full blown version of JSF. Especially UK, I haven't read anything that said the Brits won't be getting the full stealth version, but just that they are not getting the full ToT that they wanted. Either way, UK can at least play hardball with the Americans by talking about Rafale-M. What can the Australians do? Get more super hornets?

[IDonT]

It's a shame the A-12 didn't make it.

The crucial question in my view is: what is going to replace the F-14? When I first read about the JSF project many years ago I read that it was meant to replace not only the F-18 and the F-16 but also the A-10, the USMC Harrier and the F-14. And indeed, even though the F-35 may not formally replace the F-14 de facto this seems to be the case. Or is the F-18F assuming the role the F-14 had before while the JSF is going to fulfill the task of the older F-18 versions? So a revamped lo-tier aircraft design, which the F-18F really is in aerodynamic terms, is going to step in for the F-14? Can somebody englighten me?

The USAF should have enough punch to do the job of hunting down tanks, artillery positions and the like. The navy does not need a bomb truck but a truly superior aircraft which enables a carrier strike group to deal independently with the most sophisticated defences and capable of defending it from serious threats from air and sea. The stealthy, super cruise capable F-22 appears much better suited for this than both the F-18F and the JSF.

What do you think?

with kind regards
Andrew

The F-18E/F replaces the F-14
F-35 C replaces the F-18C/D

The USN has no credible threats to its command of the seas. It is more powerful than the next 17 largest navies in the world. As a result, its posture has changed. Carriers provide the US the ability to bomb any place in the world without permission from a foreign govt, as in the case of the USAF. Because of this reality, bombs on target is a priority capability. The super bug, especially with its new radar, is no slouch in air to air combat either.

I'm confused here. I thought UK and Australia would be getting the full blown version of JSF. Especially UK, I haven't read anything that said the Brits won't be getting the full stealth version, but just that they are not getting the full ToT that they wanted. Either way, UK can at least play hardball with the Americans by talking about Rafale-M. What can the Australians do? Get more super hornets?

It looks like Australia will definately get the watered not as stealthy version.

US just won't share tech secrets with UK involving stealth. Don't know whether their version will have the stealth capability of the US though.

[Andrew]

"The F-18E/F replaces the F-14
F-35 C replaces the F-18C/D

The USN has no credible threats to its command of the seas. It is more powerful than the next 17 largest navies in the world. As a result, its posture has changed. Carriers provide the US the ability to bomb any place in the world without permission from a foreign govt, as in the case of the USAF. Because of this reality, bombs on target is a priority capability. The super bug, especially with its new radar, is no slouch in air to air combat either."

Thanks for this info.

It seems to me that the Navy is resting on its laurels. When these plans were conceived it was vastly superior, the former Soviet navy rotting away. However, the world is changing. In a regional scenario, a carrier strike group may well have to face difficult situations within the next 15 to 20 years.

The Su-30 design has space for a very capable radar and indeed, should such an appliance be installed at some time in the near future, the major advantag the F-35 enjoys today will have been eroded. The problem I see is that the Navy is going to have to stick to the F-18F and the F-35 for the next few decades. Meanwhile, China and others will acquire and develop new kind of aircraft. To be sure, the JSF's radar and electronics can be upgraded but the basic airframe will stay the same.

In the past, the Navy paid great attention to air dominance, today, in my eyes it seems to be slowly steering away from this. Given the fact that perhaps only relatively few F-22s are going to be bought and bearing in mind that the carriers are true "front line assets" which are sent into a critical area first, this might be a dangerous path it is heading down.

with kind regards
Andrew

[MIGleader]

I'm confused here. I thought UK and Australia would be getting the full blown version of JSF. Especially UK, I haven't read anything that said the Brits won't be getting the full stealth version, but just that they are not getting the full ToT that they wanted. Either way, UK can at least play hardball with the Americans by talking about Rafale-M. What can the Australians do? Get more super hornets?

The australians should try to develop some stealth technology on it's own, maybe with russian or french asistance. Perhaps a new RAM or something. When the f-35s arrive, Australia can coat them with a better RAM. If stealth is such a high prority in Australia, they might as well.

This is why America has so few friends now.:coffee:

[IDonT]

Thanks for this info.

It seems to me that the Navy is resting on its laurels. When these plans were conceived it was vastly superior, the former Soviet navy rotting away. However, the world is changing. In a regional scenario, a carrier strike group may well have to face difficult situations within the next 15 to 20 years.

The Su-30 design has space for a very capable radar and indeed, should such an appliance be installed at some time in the near future, the major advantag the F-35 enjoys today will have been eroded. The problem I see is that the Navy is going to have to stick to the F-18F and the F-35 for the next few decades. Meanwhile, China and others will acquire and develop new kind of aircraft. To be sure, the JSF's radar and electronics can be upgraded but the basic airframe will stay the same.

In the past, the Navy paid great attention to air dominance, today, in my eyes it seems to be slowly steering away from this. Given the fact that perhaps only relatively few F-22s are going to be bought and bearing in mind that the carriers are true "front line assets" which are sent into a critical area first, this might be a dangerous path it is heading down.

with kind regards
Andrew

You are concentrating on one field of the USN. Though its true that naval aviation is not yet on par with the USAF in terms of air dominance, don't discredit it first. There is more to naval warfare than just having a top of the line air superiority fighter. While true that the super bug does not have the range and speed of the F-14, it is a more capable all around aircraft.

[Andrew]

"You are concentrating on one field of the USN. Though its true that naval aviation is not yet on par with the USAF in terms of air dominance, don't discredit it first. There is more to naval warfare than just having a top of the line air superiority fighter. "

Agreed. In fact, my intention was to discuss naval aviation.

"While true that the super bug does not have the range and speed of the F-14, it is a more capable all around aircraft."

Clearly, it is a more capable all around aircraft as the F-14 dates back to the 70s but then, the whole environment the F-35 is going to have to face up to has changed. There are going to be Su-30s, J-10s and perhaps, in 15 years, a next generation Chinese fighter out there. Along the coasts, deadly S-300 systems will be waiting.

My point is really that if we look at the evolution of American fighter design, and if we omit the discussion about electronic capabilities and networking etc., then we do have to concede that the F-35 and the F-18F, both of which have cost lots of money to develop and which will be deployed in large numbers, are not a great step forward. In absolute terms, mainly due to their superior electronics, they may be more deadly than anything the US Navy has fielded until today, but still, I would say that these designs cannot compare in significance to the the F-4 Corsair, the Phantom or the Tomcat. Similarly, nobody would disagree that the British Navy of today could in a matter of hours sink the fleet of the Empire of 1929, however, nevertheless, Britain's overall decline since then is obvious.

I am trying to see this aspect in a larger, perhaps too broad a perspective.

With kind regards
Andrew

[IDonT]

My point is really that if we look at the evolution of American fighter design, and if we omit the discussion about electronic capabilities and networking etc., then we do have to concede that the F-35 and the F-18F, both of which have cost lots of money to develop and which will be deployed in large numbers, are not a great step forward. In absolute terms, mainly due to their superior electronics, they may be more deadly than anything the US Navy has fielded until today, but still, I would say that these designs cannot compare in significance to the the F-4 Corsair, the Phantom or the Tomcat. Similarly, nobody would disagree that the British Navy of today could in a matter of hours sink the fleet of the Empire of 1929, however, nevertheless, Britain's overall decline since then is obvious.

I am trying to see this aspect in a larger, perhaps too broad a perspective.

With kind regards
Andrew

You are concentrating solely on the F-35 and F-18F airframe to gauge the net advantage of the USN over its contemporaries. You are forgetting other advances such electronic warfare, electronic counter measures (towed decoys for the F-18), and low observability. This used in conjunction with aircraft still gives the USN an edge to any forseeable Flanker variant you can provide.

Using the USAF advancement as the basis of USN naval avaition advance is not accurate. Each branch has its on unique requirements. For example in the navy, each aircraft has a maximum recoverable weight, and as you add weapons, tanks and pods, there is less gas available to make a safe recovery. There are a variety of reasons for not expending ordnance: weather, aircraft/system problem, target availability, etc. It is not desirable to jettison perfectly good (and expensive) ordnance, so a compromise is made to meet the desired target damage, provide for additional mission requirements (i.e., air to air) and allow for approach/landing reserves. Besides, with precision weapons, there is no need to carry excess munitions-the whole theory behind moving away from the "bomb-- truck" mentality toward "one target, one bomb." With the advent of inertial/GPS guided weapons-joint direct attack munitions (JDAM), joint standoff weapon (JSOW)-a Super Hornet can destroy multiple targets in one pass, and that would make a Phantom, Corsair, Intruder, or Tomcat pilot drool.

In 1929, the Royal Navy had the US Navy and the Japanese Navy as blue water rivals, with both navies owning comparable assets in terms of battleships, cruisers, etc. The US navy of 2006 is in a class of its own. IT has 12 supercarriers and 12 VTOL carriers. France, the nearest naval power, has 1 carrier half the size as a US nimitz class and has a displacement similar to a US VTOL carrier. You see what I'm saying.

[bd popeye]

IDontT is correct. The F-18 Super Hornet is a superior aircraft than a Tomcat. A capable fighter..not superior. But an superior attack aircraft. It is a "Jack of all trades master of none" type plane.

It is true that naval aircraft have weight limits when launching and landing. The landing weight is less than the launch weight. In two deployments with Tomcats I never saw one launch with 6 Pheonix. Usally it was just two.

Andrew sez..
It's interesting to see that the new carriers are going to be simply a neven larger version of what is around today. It somehow reminds me of the German tanks in WW II getting ever heavier and more costly to produce.

I hope you really don't believe all that Andrew. More costly? Yes but more capable. Check the below link. The CVN-21 program will;

""Innovations for the CVN 21 class include an enhanced flight deck with increased sortie rates, improved weapons movement, a redesigned island, a new nuclear power plant, allowance for future technologies and reduced manning. These and many other evolutionary new designs are being developed by Newport News engineers to build the most capable aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy"".

http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/cvn21/index.html

CVN-21 project to be know as CVN-78.
http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/cvn21/images/DCS03-42-2_new.jpg

[Andrew]

I do not doubt the capabilities of the US navy. I am not saying that these aircraft won't be superior to their predecessors. And I am certain that the new carrier generation will be even more efficient. Thanks for your infos on the new carrier.

I am not so much looking at absolute numbers but try to see all this in relative terms and in the context of long term change. US naval aviation is still making improvements but the rate of progress is slowing, the trajectory is becoming flatter. Others are catching up. Today's improvements will be shown to be less fundamental and significant than previous ones by future historians.

The statement could be made about American military power, and indeed, western civilisation in general, but I think it is most striking when looking at the aspect of naval aviation in particular with the retirement of the F-14. The military reality is that in strictly aerodynamic terms, the navy will rather soon face considerable numbers of aircraft in the Asian theatry which will outpace, outrange and outperform its own ones. I find this quite remarkable as its a step towards a more level playing field.

with kind regards
Andrew

[tphuang]

The australians should try to develop some stealth technology on it's own, maybe with russian or french asistance. Perhaps a new RAM or something. When the f-35s arrive, Australia can coat them with a better RAM. If stealth is such a high prority in Australia, they might as well.

This is why America has so few friends now.:coffee:
I think that's part of the reason that the Americans are so reluctant with the entire ToT situation with UK. It probably costs astronomical amount of money to develop. Another thing is that America will probably ease up on the export controls later on. It looks like US is intent on keeping all of the stealth technology that it has. Who can blame them? Even a downgraded F-35 is going to be more stealthy than anything else out there. Also, a downgraded F-35 will probably knock down the price quite a bit, so it will be in the 50 million dollar area that it has always advertised to be.

As for F-18E, I think most of those weapons that you guys are talking about can also be applied to the Tomcat if they ever bothered with it. Anyhow, whatever plane USN chooses to use as its main naval fighter will be upgraded wil the latest radar, RAM paint and weapons, meaning it will be really good.

[IDonT]

I do not doubt the capabilities of the US navy. I am not saying that these aircraft won't be superior to their predecessors. And I am certain that the new carrier generation will be even more efficient. Thanks for your infos on the new carrier.

I am not so much looking at absolute numbers but try to see all this in relative terms and in the context of long term change. US naval aviation is still making improvements but the rate of progress is slowing, the trajectory is becoming flatter. Others are catching up. Today's improvements will be shown to be less fundamental and significant than previous ones by future historians.

The statement could be made about American military power, and indeed, western civilisation in general, but I think it is most striking when looking at the aspect of naval aviation in particular with the retirement of the F-14. The military reality is that in strictly aerodynamic terms, the navy will rather soon face considerable numbers of aircraft in the Asian theatry which will outpace, outrange and outperform its own ones. I find this quite remarkable as its a step towards a more level playing field.

with kind regards
Andrew

Ahhh now I see where your coming from. The myth that the F-18F or the F-35 is aerdynamically inferior to that of the F-14 and other flanker variants. That is just a myth. The super bug has higher angle of attack than the F-14 and at some speeds much more manueverable.

Consider this for a moment, from the basic Su-27 airframe, the Russians developed the the Su-35, basically an SU-27 with superior radar and thrust vectoring. Could the USN do the same? The super bug already has one of the best radar in the world. Adding a more powerful and thrust vectoring engine is not much of a strech of the imagination. Remember, the US had them long before the Russians.

Another matter is what makes you think the the technology gap between the US and other nations is closing? No other nation spends as much on R&D than the US. The best that the competition can muster is a Flanker derivative. The Jxx and the PakFA have not yet past the conceptual stage. By the time they are ready, the F-18 and F-35's replacement should be available.

[Andrew]

"Ahhh now I see where your coming from. The myth that the F-18F or the F-35 is aerdynamically inferior to that of the F-14 and other flanker variants. That is just a myth. The super bug has higher angle of attack than the F-14 and at some speeds much more manueverable.

Consider this for a moment, from the basic Su-27 airframe, the Russians developed the the Su-35, basically an SU-27 with superior radar and thrust vectoring. Could the USN do the same? The super bug already has one of the best radar in the world. Adding a more powerful and thrust vectoring engine is not much of a strech of the imagination. Remember, the US had them long before the Russians.

Another matter is what makes you think the the technology gap between the US and other nations is closing? No other nation spends as much on R&D than the US. The best that the competition can muster is a Flanker derivative. The Jxx and the PakFA have not yet past the conceptual stage. By the time they are ready, the F-18 and F-35's replacement should be available."

Yes, that's where I am coming from ;) I hope my musings will not be deleted, I will go somewhat off-topic to explain my broader views:

Your argument that military innovation (Su-27 -> Su-35 = no great leap) has also slowed down on the Russian side which is supplying the Asian theatre is true and a very good one. Indeed, in this sense one could harbour doubts whether the Chinese will ever truly succeed the Americans as the world's leading power. Since, if we look at very long term history and start, say, from the Egyptians, we will find that every empire thereafter lasted less long and was in a way, more "degraded".
An indication that China's rise may not last that long may be seen in the fact that not so far out in the future, its own population will begin to age very rapidly. The one child policy and a surplus of 40 million young men will have its negative impact on societal cohesion. Drug abuse and corruption in the lare cities are serious problems already today. Thus, I am speculating that China/Asia will very quickly be faced with the same problems the West has slowly moved into over the last 100 to 150 years while at the same time battling with the problems of developmental countries. This goes especially for India. It is a senior culture and its military is growing in capabilities but there seem to be insuperable differences within the country. How do you want to lead the world out of chaos towards more order and wealth if you are yourself divided by conflict (30 official languages)?

It therefore seems too much to be overcome, especially as the ailing West is "climbing down the ladder", sending tremendous shockwaves across the system. I see the possibility of a global crisis in which all must break down for some truly new civilisation to emerge.

I think the technology gap will be closing for theoretical reasons, because every military industrial complex needs a sound base. This base is rapidly eroding in the United States if we look at it in economic terms. The country is dead broke, similar as the British Empire after the First World War. Demographics are changing in a way which is not favourable for social stability in the long run. The number of discontent, uneducated people unhappy about the rule of the white anglo-saxon protestant elite is growing. At some stage, there is going to be some sort of crunch. I am not making normative statements here, I am not for or against anyone, I am just describing what is happening. You can't keep fielding 13 mega carriers if there is civil strife in your own country and if the president's plane is threatened to be confiscated when he lands in a foreign airport because his nation cannot pay interest (I think I read that this happened to the Argentinian president in 2000).

Even though I doubt that Asia is genuinely going to take over the baton from the West (for the reasonning outlined above) I do think that it has the economic potential to challenge it militarily.

I do have to admit, though, that the Department of Defense has some very ambitious plans such as Missile Defense and directed energy weapons. If it will manage to introduce these weapons across a broad front, there may well be another American century. By the way, the story about cyborg sharks and insects sound pretty scary, too ;)

With kind regards
Andrew

[Kampfwagen]

I think that's part of the reason that the Americans are so reluctant with the entire ToT situation with UK. It probably costs astronomical amount of money to develop. Another thing is that America will probably ease up on the export controls later on. It looks like US is intent on keeping all of the stealth technology that it has. Who can blame them? Even a downgraded F-35 is going to be more stealthy than anything else out there. Also, a downgraded F-35 will probably knock down the price quite a bit, so it will be in the 50 million dollar area that it has always advertised to be.

As for F-18E, I think most of those weapons that you guys are talking about can also be applied to the Tomcat if they ever bothered with it. Anyhow, whatever plane USN chooses to use as its main naval fighter will be upgraded wil the latest radar, RAM paint and weapons, meaning it will be really good.

You make a good point. When I first saw this, I honestly felt that the Ausies were being extremely spoiled. If we seriously did not trust them with Stealth, then we would have given them old F-117 fighters or something. Its a given with any complicated peice of high-tech machinery avaliable to export to be downgraded a bit. It's natural, its done in every export machine I have ever heard of. But an F-35 is still a hell of a step above most fighters in the region, with the exception of Su-30's and J-10's.

[adeptitus]

My point is really that if we look at the evolution of American fighter design, and if we omit the discussion about electronic capabilities and networking etc., then we do have to concede that the F-35 and the F-18F, both of which have cost lots of money to develop and which will be deployed in large numbers, are not a great step forward. In absolute terms, mainly due to their superior electronics, they may be more deadly than anything the US Navy has fielded until today, but still, I would say that these designs cannot compare in significance to the the F-4 Corsair, the Phantom or the Tomcat. Similarly, nobody would disagree that the British Navy of today could in a matter of hours sink the fleet of the Empire of 1929, however, nevertheless, Britain's overall decline since then is obvious.


Britian's decline as a global power has more to do with evolution of the Empire, into independent states of the Commonwealth after WW2. The low point for the British Navy was just prior to the Falklands War, when the British government had considered scrapping its entire carrier force.

Today the future of British Navy's carrier force is more secure, so you could say the situation actually improved.

If we only look at numbers, the US Navy had 100 carriers + 27 under construction at end of WW2 in 1945. Today the USN has far fewer number of carriers, but the cost, size, and capability of the carriers have gone up by a huge margain.

Is the F-35 a huge leap over the F-18? Both planes might deliver the same bombs with the same accuracy, but the F-18 will look like a big "shoot me now" target on radar, versus F-35 might not show up on your opponent's radar. You can't deliver bombs on target if you get shot down.

[MIGleader]

Ahhh now I see where your coming from. The myth that the F-18F or the F-35 is aerdynamically inferior to that of the F-14 and other flanker variants. That is just a myth. The super bug has higher angle of attack than the F-14 and at some speeds much more manueverable.

Consider this for a moment, from the basic Su-27 airframe, the Russians developed the the Su-35, basically an SU-27 with superior radar and thrust vectoring. Could the USN do the same? The super bug already has one of the best radar in the world. Adding a more powerful and thrust vectoring engine is not much of a strech of the imagination. Remember, the US had them long before the Russians.

Another matter is what makes you think the the technology gap between the US and other nations is closing? No other nation spends as much on R&D than the US. The best that the competition can muster is a Flanker derivative. The Jxx and the PakFA have not yet past the conceptual stage. By the time they are ready, the F-18 and F-35's replacement should be available.

Just correcting you there, the su-35 has canards too. It does not have TVC, thats the su-37.

What do you mean? The russians have actually installed TVC engines on operational fighters(the MKI). The u.s has only put them on test aircraft. Thus, russia is ahead in TVC.

The f-18 is aerodynamically inferior to the su-27, it is a fact. The flanker uses its entire body as a lift surface, while the f-18 merely has wings and root extensions. The flanker also has more powerful engines.

I believe the su-47 and mig-1.44 rival the level of stealth the f-35 offers. If they were feilded, they would pose a serious threat to it. j-xx will be flying in as soon 3 years, and entering service by 2012-2015.

[MrClean]

I really don't think that the Su-47 can be anywhere near as stealthy as a JSF. The wings being forward-swept must increase it's RCS, and there's obviously a reason why Russia is going with other (better) designs. And as far as Russia's thrust vectoring tech being better than that of the U.S. I have seen demonstrations (videos) of both Su-30MKI, Su-37 and one more Sukhoi aircraft but I can't recall the designation number. And I have seen videos of the F-22 and JSF in action. All of these aircraft are capable of outstanding maneuverability.(sp?) I think that the superior avionics and
fly-by-wire tech of the F-22/JSF, compared to the huge thrust and aerodynamic design incorperated with canards and thrust vectoring of the Sukhoi aircraft put these planes in very much the same category when it comes to performance, and when it comes down to within visual range dogfights. But that is really the only place where the Sukhoi aircraft can take these planes on, and even then the stealth of the American planes will give them a leg up, and it will remain that way until Russia has enough money to really invest in this so called "plasma stealth."

I think it'd be really great for the J-XX to be revealed and just make all these Russian planes obsolete, it'd really be a statement of China's technologic and economic capability. That'd give the F-22 pilot's something to sweat about.

[walter]

What do you mean? The russians have actually installed TVC engines on operational fighters(the MKI). The u.s has only put them on test aircraft. Thus, russia is ahead in TVC.


The F-22 is not a test aircraft, it is operational. However, the russians have 3D TVC vs. 2D for the F-22. 2D TVC on the F-22 is a result of stealth considerations and due to the fact that vertical TVC actually does allow for greater lateral maneuverabilty (roll), as well as the more obvious increased max AoA and pitch rate.

I don't know if this makes the US or Russia ahead in TVC, but bascially TVC is nothing new and the US, Russia, China, Euro nations can all implement it if desired.