One commenter in the linked-to article made an interesting point: “Who cares? That jet was never meant for combat, it was meant for pork.”
The jet that’s supposed to make up more than 90 percent of America’s combat aviation fleet may have become a lot easier to shoot down.
Lockheed Martin, makers of the Joint Strike Fighter, has been under huge pressure to stabilize the jet’s skyrocketing costs. [...] So Lockheed decided “to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems,” according to InsideDefense.com. But those cuts made it much harder for the Joint Strike Fighter to withstand a hit from an anti-aircraft weapon.
[...]
Now, one of the JSF’s selling points was that it wouldn’t have to worry to much about taking on anti-aircraft fire; the jet would be so stealthy that the ground-to-air guns would never find it. But according to a report published by Air Power Australia, the plane is easier to spot than originally advertised. In fact, it is “demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft.”
[...]
Lockheed spokesman John Kent basically said the Pentagon tester was all wrong about the plane’s vulnerability. “The present design meets the JSFPO’s expectations for vulnerability.”Well, yeah. That’s true. “With the exception of a 30mm high-explosive incendiary round typically associated with light anti-aircraft artillery,” Trautman wrote. Like the kind Russia has, and sells all around the world.
5, Bob,
Case in point is the Navy has ZERO desire for a single jet fighter.
Agreed, but the question will be a matter of when. Due to internal politics, military brass are dragging their heels on this as well.
6, Eric,
YUP!!!
10, Pagon,
None of which would stand a very good chance up against a Raptor. With vectored thrust alone, the Raptor can do maneuvers that are aerodynamically impossible to do in the jets you listed.
A compromise would be the Silent Eagle, but it doesn’t fully reach the full potential of the F-22…. but it could be quite practical for the here and now.
By the late 90s, the deployed F-14 squadrons were getting parts from shore-based F-14s. Northrup wasn’t making a whole heck of a lot of parts, especially with the Super Hornet replacing the F-14.
11, Pagon,
Silent Eagle
12, Father,
You have a life support systems as well as ejection seats, etc. Not to mention the pilots ability to stay conscious puts a hard limit over what you can logistically do with jets.
14, Mark T.
The Navy has no desire for a single jet A/C.
15, Maricopa,
Pilots also get tired. The biggest argument / concern against UAVs is the worry of lack situational awareness that AI software and sensors fail to provide to a remote operator.
17, GetSmart,
And when we retaliate, we go to war with what we have and not what we’d like to have. In order to maintain any technological gap over China / Russia we would have to spend in a non-linear fashion. If China / Russia closes the technological gap, then war will essentially be reduced to WWII fighting tactics, and it will be a war of attrition…. we will be in a very bad position.
11, Pagon,
The latest Air & Space claims the F-15C requires 11 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air. I’d imagine the F-14 required even more, with that swing wing and all. This seems crazy. If I was the Sec. USAF, I’d demand better availability/lower manhour costs. If a plane can’t fly, it doesn’t matter how cool, sexy, or steathly, it is.
The Aussies should buy the Russian fighter. They have a large boarder, and need lots of capable machines to provide coverage, rather than a dozen POC F-22s.
I don’t understand why the F-35 exists. Even the F-16 seems more like a sports car with a 5 gallon tank than a workhorse. The P-51D was a great fighter because of its great range, it could reach the fight and then fight! The BF-109s apparently had no range, so they couldn’t stay aloft and fight.
If UCAVs take over, like everyone has been claiming for 10 years, then there is no reason to field Aircraft Carriers any longer. Really, the USN should be a subsurface force, dontcha think?
The US military and/or US Congress has been dreaming up “joint service” jet fighters since the 1960s. I worked on their failed attempt to have such a plane adopted by both Air Force and Navy. The F-111 Aardvark (probably named, after the Navy rejected it). Even years after being told it was too heavy to land on Naval Carriers, later F-111 models still incorporated the flight components needed for such a landing at sea. And later, other newly made computer gear, made for the Navy’s use, kept being showing up in the Air Force inventory. They just couldn’t give up on the idea that two services might approve of using the aircraft. But it never happened.
Rather than keep coming up with newer manned fighters, that two or more services will buy. They ought to just focus on unmanned remoted aircraft. Or do they only build these manned craft, in order to entice future pilots (and even ground personnel) to enlist? I guess it’s not as thrilling to pilot a plane from a safe ground computer terminal. And jet jockeys aren’t as likely to sign up to play a video game dog fight. And also the makers won’t make as much building unmanned aircraft, as the manned versions. So you know they’re against it.
Frankly, other than making more profits, and enticing a newer generation of enlistee, I can’t see any practical reasons for redesigning fighter aircraft. The laws of aerodynamics doesn’t change from year to year. The electronics gets smaller and more reliable. But that no reason to redesign the entire airframe. And they can’t make them fly any faster, as the pilots will pass out from the G forces. So all they really can do is increase their range, and update the planes’ computer gear.
The F35 was designed to hover land and takeoff. Somewhat useful for fighting in the jungle, where landing space is limited. But we’ve been having wars in deserts for the last two decades. Where dust and sand can be a problem for anything hovering low. And landing strio space is hardly a problem, for a conventional horizontal landing. So isn’t the F35 just an expensive glamor toy, for the 21th century of warfare? And won’t the US be more tempted to pick fights to justify their cost, rather than peacefully negotiating?
Glenn Said, “The F35 was designed to hover land and takeoff. Somewhat useful for fighting in the jungle, ”
Only one version is so designed. (do you know which one?) Doesn’t seem like you have looked into this plane at all…