Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Wouldn't that be F/A...as in F/A-18 and A-6 Growler? But ya..the F35 was supposed to support the USMC so I guess they've dropped the "A" for new aircraft.
OK, let's back the truth truck up for a second, here...the F/A-18 was designated by the Navy as multi-role following the days when airplanes were though of as single role. The F-4 excelled as a bomber, but was built for air superiority. The A-6 excelled as a bomber (and it was call the "Intruder") and was built for bombing, hence, the 'A".
The "Growler" is the F/A-18 repurposed to perform electronic attack, because it was built for electronic attack, it's known as the EA-18G (the G being the model number, and it follows the E/F model of the super Hornet).
The USAF logic in calling the F-117 an "F" is unsupportable, but they were trying to obfuscate information on the airplane.
Now, on to stealth. It's defeat-able, sure. But defeating it is not as simple as everyone makes it out to be. The best frequency for radars has already been settled on...and you can't go after a stealth fighter by changing the radar on another fighter to long-wavelength radars, or you get so much clutter, along with absolutely terrible resolution (this is physics), that the radar becomes useless.
So, stealth works. It works best against other airplanes.
The F-117 that got shot down had a couple of things going against it:
1. Stupidity in planning. Every airplane was going in/out of country using the same navigation fixes for deconfliction...track all the conventional airplanes as they fly in and out, and you can map out where the next airplane will come from. Then you, as a defender, set your defenses up against a predictable enemy...ask Scott O'Grady about this...
2. Stupidity in mission execution. "Never fly directly under an overcast" has been a combat rule to live by since WWII. It highlights your airplane visually. So, by forgetting that rule, the F-117 pilot made himself completely visible...and some SAMs can be guided optically. Stealth doesn't work against eyeballs...
The F-35 will change the game; the tactics, the rules, the planning.
I'm not a fan of the airplane, it's too heavy (carrier structural requirements) for the USAF, and the USMC version is hobbled by lousy fuel capacity (gotta' have room for a lift fan and gearbox). But all V/STOL airplanes have insufficient fuel. The AV-8B was terrible. So is the F-35B, well, it's less terrible, and in fact, is close to the current F/A-18C/D range. A lot less than the F-35A, and a whole lot less than the F-35C. The USAF hobbled their own -A version by insisting on a 9G airframe...OK, but they had to reduce the wing size so that it can carry that load...and thus reduced the internal fuel capacity while keeping the carrier weight penalty.
It appears now that the USN version, the F-35C, will be the best airplane. Lower wing loading (because of the 25% larger wing than the F-35A) and longer range (because that same wing carries MORE FUEL).
The flight demo at Paris this week was merely adequate...not the best, but not the worst, performing airplane I've seen...it was a short show, so I would guess that it was lightly loaded on fuel...making the show more impressive, but having less to do with real-world performance.
But NONE OF THAT MATTERS if you can't see the airplane.
Imagine that you and I agree to get into a gun fight. I choose rifles. I choose that we start at least 100 yards apart and I further choose that you must wear a blindfold until I get within 10 yards of you. Ready?
Because that's what we're talking about here...the other airplanes can't see this thing to shoot until it is in visual range. That's why it kills F-16s in Red Flag at 15:1. Sure, a few guys in conventional fighters get in a lucky shot because they got close enough. Everyone else dies. Those are the odds we want on our side.
But it's not just a fighter and you've got to take the long view. It's a long range, first-strike, attack weapon for the USN Carriers. Now, caution, game-change alert, on day one against a near-peer adversary (not the stone age threat of the Afghan or Iraqi scenarios, but someone with fighters, radars, SAMs, all of it in an Integrated Air Defense System) the F-35s can launch from a carrier. Because of the increased range of the F-35C, that carrier is now able to be far enough away to be invisible to the enemy. The enemy won't know the F-35s are overhead until the bombs explode. Couple the F-35s with a few UCAV X-47s (stealth autonomous airplane) as their wingman.
You can hold every nation at risk with a carrier. No need for expensive bases in countries that require treaties and long supply chains....treaties, by the way, that allow foreign nations to veto certain actions, treaties that require permission, and in the asking of permission, allow intelligence (I&W) to get to the target nation hat we're coming and when.
Further, by having a credible fighter, and a stealthy one at that (sorry, the AV-8B is cool, but it's not a fighter, even with AMRAAM) on the Navy's Amphibious Assault ships (LPH, etc.) you can double the number of places in the world that the striking power exists. Sure, the F-35B is shorter range, but it's still there, and the adversary Air Force is powerless to stop it.
Overpriced? Sure. Compromised? Yeah.
Paradigm shift in capability?
Absolutely.
