Exactly what it says on the tin. What would be needed to select the unusual XF-32 over the XF-35, and how would the JSF program develop afterwards?
F-32 selected for the JSF Program.
- Thread starter ScorchedLight
- Start date
The X-32's STOVL system was less risky than the one on the Lockheed entry, but the X-32 was less maneuverable than the X-35, and the successful usage of a powered fan on the F-35 made it have more payload and range than the X-32. I'm quite anti F-35, but its the better of the two designs.
abc123
Banned
I'm quite anti F-35, QUOTE]
Care to elaborate
Simply, it isn't a fighter, it isn't a 5th generation, it isn't attack aircraft and finaly, but not the least important, it isn't cheap.
It MIGHT be a poor solution for USA that has 180 Raptors to do the real job, but for all others it will just be overpriced sitting/flying duck...
abc123
Banned
Yup, THAT'S a REALLY sad thing in this whole story...
Maybe the Swedes make something with their Gripen NG?
Care to elaborate?
It is a multi-role fighter and it sure seems to me that it has alot of the 5th generations characteristics... besides the fact that it is a 5th gen fighter.
though I will agree that it is not a purpose built attack aircraft and its not as cheap as original planned.
I've seen articles suggesting it is intended to fill the attack role (like a modern A-7), and that air-to-air combat is an area it is distinctly unsuited for. Air Power Australia seems like a somewhat biased source, but they're not obviously wrong about some of it's performance issues.
And the price, of course, is becoming simply ridiculous. Have any entered service yet?
Well there is a reason I said purpose-built. The F-35 cant replace the A-10 its just not going to be able to match the A-10's performance but replace the F-16? sure.
And even from the beginning they were not to enter service until 2016.
Actually there are USAF units that are beginning to receive F-35 but you are correct that no unit is suppose to be operational until 2016. The F-35 is designed to replace the A-19, F-16, Harrier and the F/a-18. It has a lower radar signature than the aircraft that its replacing and gets more miles per gallon of fuel than the order aircraft.
The F-35 looks better to me than the F-32 but the F-22 is a better aicraft than either .
The F-35 looks better to me than the F-32 but the F-22 is a better aicraft than either .
abc123
Banned
Care to elaborate?
It is a multi-role fighter and it sure seems to me that it has alot of the 5th generations characteristics... besides the fact that it is a 5th gen fighter.
though I will agree that it is not a purpose built attack aircraft and its not as cheap as original planned.
Characteristics of 5th generation aircraft:
supercruise- Nope
supermanuverability- Nope
AESA radar- Yap
internal weapons bay's- yap, but small, any weapon out under wings and bye, bye stealth
stealth- below F-22 level
Pretty slow aircraft- M1.6 ( ideal conditions )- bad
Only one engine- bad ( not nesescerly but it's better to have 2 engines )
Price- cca. 200 millions USD
If it allready has to be so expencive, why they at least can't make decent aircraft? Like PAK FA.
Air Power Australia? Somewhat biased? Don't you mean totally biased and fully of barely coherent gibberish? I mean the damn site is run by a loon who believes we should be flying the F-111 from now to the end of time.
I try to be charitable about people that I don't agree with. If I wasn't being polite, I might say something similar to that too
Dr Kopp seems to have a tragically-unrequited love affair with the F-22 as well, although that's perhaps less surprising.
Only bad if you just love pouring money down the drain.
Seriously, it's not the 1950s. When was the last time an F-16 dropped out of the air strictly because of engine failure?
Should we fly biplanes too, because you don't trust non-wire-braced wing struts?
Ming777
Monthly Donor
It's still a risk, especially for us Canucks.
The reason we bought the CF-18 Hornets instead of a CF-16 was the two engines. Even if one engine is gone, the pilot could limp to base. If a CF-16 lost its engine in the middle of one of the least populated areas in the world the size of Europe (and more)...
The reason we bought the CF-18 Hornets instead of a CF-16 was the two engines. Even if one engine is gone, the pilot could limp to base. If a CF-16 lost its engine in the middle of one of the least populated areas in the world the size of Europe (and more)...
Tovarich
Banned
I know Canada is enormous, but is there anywhere an airborne rescue squad couldn't get to an ejected pilot quickly nowadays, presuming he has some form of locator signal?
Also (and this I definitely don't know, I'm just wondering) wouldn't a 2-engine aircraft flying on one engine have to really push that engine to the max, and thus use more fuel than with both engines going, hence the pilot would have to eject before home anyway?
Also (and this I definitely don't know, I'm just wondering) wouldn't a 2-engine aircraft flying on one engine have to really push that engine to the max, and thus use more fuel than with both engines going, hence the pilot would have to eject before home anyway?
Canada does not (yet) have major bases in the North - the SAR centers currently are at Cold Lake and Goose Bay. If somebody goes down in Nunavut, it can take 24 Hours to get somebody out there to find them, as many as 48 before he can get picked up. In Arctic weather, if you are injured in an ejection (not uncommon), you may well not live 48 Hours.
Not really. Any modern airplane with two engines flies just fine on one, assuming the pilot compensates for the fact that he's lost an engine. Cruising in a fighter takes a tiny fraction of its maximum engine power, so he simply brings her back home. Ming is right that Canada did pick the CF-18 because they wanted two engines in order to give pilots a better chance of bringing it home. And even with that, Canada has lost 16 CF-18s in operational accidents since the last one was delivered in 1986. Canada's environment is not nice to fighters.
Carolo Kopp, who runs Airpower Australia, is an idiot. In fact when you type his name into Google idiot is one of the suggestions. He likes only cartain big, 2 engine planes and slags off at everything else, and he has absolutely no strategic or economic sense at all.
The PAK FA is only 2 aircraft built and 2 in construction which have flown about 40 flights, this is no basis on which to declare it a good aircraft, or better than the F35.
The PAK FA is only 2 aircraft built and 2 in construction which have flown about 40 flights, this is no basis on which to declare it a good aircraft, or better than the F35.