Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pretty poor decision to omit the gun but if a -35 finds itself in a turning engagement something has gone very horribly wrong.

Will F-22s feature as heavily in US over seas deployments once the F-35 comes into service? I Still see a need for a pure Interceptor/air super type aircraft.

 Seaward wrote:

Spartak wrote:
In March 2013 USAF test pilots noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";[185] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.[186] The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):

Eh, that's a tad misleading. It was one Air Force pilot in one report. And he's right, as far as I can tell; aft visibility isn't great, but EODAS is designed to make up for that.

There's a decent argument to be made, of course, that if EODAS goes down, the plane's fethed, and it's probably true to a large extent.

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.

Unsure what this refers to. We're flying them, currently.

Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.

That's not F-35 specific. Any ejection seat can fail, and if it does, you're dead.

Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.

Haven't heard anything about that myself, but sounds like an iPad-level fix.

The radar performs poorly or not at all.

This one's just confusing. The AN/APG-81's an amazing radar, very likely the best we can field in a fighter. It specced very well out of design, and nobody thought it'd do what Northrop Grumman claimed - and then it exceeded expectations in operational testing.

Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.

That needs to come down, but two hours is likely a pipe dream.

Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.

ROVER's the gak, but we'll likely just pod it, like we do with everything else it's deployed on. Won't be much of an issue, as I can't imagine you could come up with a scenario where we'd want to use it without air superiority, so the hit to RCS won't be a big deal.

This is from Wikipedia. The pilots I work with seem to have very positive view of the F22 and think the F35 is a load of high priced gak. I don't really have an opinion as I'm not a pilot and I haven't done a ton of research on that airframe.

This is the part I'm most interested in, to tell you the truth. Raptor pilots aren't sold on the F-35?

Not Raptor pilots specifically, I'm talking about fighter pilots in general. I work for a RPA SQ and we pull pilots from all over the AF. It's a pretty interesting mix of people. Now a few years ago I wouldn't have valued their opinions very much as the unofficial AF policy was to pull pilots from the bottom of the barrel so to speak. As the RPA community has grown and become more mainstream it's done a full 180, SQ's are being forced to give up some of their best guys to come fly. (neither the flying SQ or the pilots are very happy about it) The general consensus is that the 22 is deadly, almost every guy I talk to has a "I was dead before I knew the 22 was in the area" story. No one has a positive story, firsthand or otherwise with the 35.

Spartak wrote:
Not Raptor pilots specifically, I'm talking about fighter pilots in general. I work for a RPA SQ and we pull pilots from all over the AF. It's a pretty interesting mix of people. Now a few years ago I wouldn't have valued their opinions very much as the unofficial AF policy was to pull pilots from the bottom of the barrel so to speak. As the RPA community has grown and become more mainstream it's done a full 180, SQ's are being forced to give up some of their best guys to come fly. (neither the flying SQ or the pilots are very happy about it) The general consensus is that the 22 is deadly, almost every guy I talk to has a "I was dead before I knew the 22 was in the area" story. No one has a positive story, firsthand or otherwise with the 35.

Welp, I can say with a hundred percent certainty that at least one former naval aviator likes it, though I don't have firsthand experience with it. There's an extremely small number of guys who do.

Funny thing is? The F-35 might very well see the Raptor before the Raptor sees it. We'll just have to see where the F-35's RCS finally lands. It's definitely got the better AESA.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Pretty poor decision to omit the gun but if a -35 finds itself in a turning engagement something has gone very horribly wrong.

Will F-22s feature as heavily in US over seas deployments once the F-35 comes into service? I Still see a need for a pure Interceptor/air super type aircraft.

I also am not to worried about the gun not being there, not so much because it doesn't need it, which in theory it shouldn't. I'm more worried that as far as a jet fighter the thing can't maneuver, so a gun wouldn't matter anyway. It really is a pig, it my be fast and have supercruise (once they can figure out how to keep it from melting...yeah that's right it melts), but it can't maneuver at all. The theory that it can knock enemies out of the sky before they even know its there better hold true, this aircraft is a big fat sniper, not a fighter.

Not to mention it is a horrible platform for any kind of CAS mission! Seriously remove the whole stealth part from the Marines version, they don't need it. Maybe the weight saved will let them carry more arms, currently as a strike fighter it can't carry much ordnance.

The issue is the "One plane to rule them all" idea. Anybody who knows anything about aircraft knows it just cant be done, well it can, but not very well. Plus trying to shoehorn planes to fit missions, costs a hell of a lot more in the long run. Aircraft are at their best as position players. Yes you can effectively mulit role....to a point, push that too far and you have mission capability problems and major cost issues.

The F-35 might very well see the Raptor before the Raptor sees it. We'll just have to see where the F-35's RCS finally lands. It's definitely got the better AESA.

Yes but f-35s signature is all over the place, nobody seams to know what it will be in the end, will it be a marble? or will it be a beach ball as some people say?

Look i think it will end up working out, it might be a good replacement for the f-16 and f-18 as a multi role utility vehicle. As a sniper it may be excellent, as a front line fighter, interceptor, I have concerns and the aircraft has issues. Aircraft get jumped, especially when performing certain missions. If a f35 gets jumped.....I think its lack of actual dogfighter DNA is going to get it killed.

Also as a main CAS platform its a complete waste, way too expensive, unmaneuverable and no payload. CAS aircraft take a beating from weapons that stealth is not going to mitigate, I have strong doubts that this aircraft can take a beating, not only that, it will be a hanger queen to repair even the smallest scratch on its stealth hide.

It just seems like it's the Aircraft version of Bradley Fighting Vehicle with its development issues and whatnot.

For the record (and Andrew in particular) the 35B outperforms the aircraft it's been replacing, the AV-8B Harrier II in payload, range, speed and just about everything else. It has been a goddamn FANTASTIC strike fighter in it's many long years of service and has done quite well by my fellow jarheads on the ground. It stacks up pretty nicely to the F-18 as well which is our OTHER CAS support. So... I'm just curious how much you (Andrew) know what you're talking about when it comes to CAS aircraft. The boys in the dirt love seeing Viper and Venom (the new block Super Cobra and Huey) come in to feth gak up, they carry significantly less payload then just a Harrier.

I haven't heard anything about the 35 being a brick, and have heard quite the opposite, Seaward, would you perhaps know someone who'd know more on that? Or have any info you'd already know?

It has been a goddamn FANTASTIC strike fighter in it's many long years of service and has done quite well by my fellow jarheads on the ground.

The f35 has not been used in combat yet. Do you know what you are talking about?

Are you referring to the harrier, which is a nice aircraft but nowhere near as capable as an f/a-18 ,f-16 or a-10 which the f-35 is also replacing. Jump jets are great for certain missions, but for the most part the extra weight is a limiting factor. Weight is always the most precious commodity of an airframe, it affects every aspect of performance; Speed, Range, Payload, Climb and Turn rate...basically everything, is affected by weight. The f-35 is heavy because it has too many roles, each requiring weight which is not needed for the other roles. Stealth on a CAS bird is as useful as tits on a bull, but I guarantee you that every time that coating gets scratched they are going to make it sit in a hanger and get repaired.

The sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C. The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter. On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel.

http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2011/08/f-35-maneuverability-woes.html Here is a good article discussing the f-35s maneuverability and what that could mean.

Not withstanding talks of budget cuts, the A-10 is scheduled to be in service until 2040 at least, meaning the F-35 will not be replacing it anytime soon.

 djones520 wrote:
Not withstanding talks of budget cuts, the A-10 is scheduled to be in service until 2040 at least, meaning the F-35 will not be replacing it anytime soon.

Hmm, I don't know that you can even have a conversation right now that does not include budget cut considerations.

I don't expect the A-10 to go anywhere. The Army has to much love for it, and they'll fight any talks of cutting it and replacing it with an untried system, kicking and screaming.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

It has been a goddamn FANTASTIC strike fighter in it's many long years of service and has done quite well by my fellow jarheads on the ground.

The f35 has not been used in combat yet. Do you know what you are talking about?

Are you referring to the harrier, which is a nice aircraft but nowhere near as capable as an f/a-18 ,f-16 or a-10 which the f-35 is also replacing. Jump jets are great for certain missions, but for the most part the extra weight is a limiting factor. Weight is always the most precious commodity of an airframe, it affects every aspect of performance; Speed, Range, Payload, Climb and Turn rate...basically everything, is affected by weight. The f-35 is heavy because it has too many roles, each requiring weight which is not needed for the other roles. Stealth on a CAS bird is as useful as tits on a bull, but I guarantee you that every time that coating gets scratched they are going to make it sit in a hanger and get repaired.

The sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C. The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter. On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel.

http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2011/08/f-35-maneuverability-woes.html Here is a good article discussing the f-35s maneuverability and what that could mean.

Calm down sparky I was talking harriers, and if quoting random blogs is the end all be all of debate we all owe Whembly an apology. I was also one of the first to mention WE (as in the Marine Corps) don't really need the stealth crap for the CAS/CAP role we use our harriers in. Thanks for the reminder though.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I haven't heard anything about the 35 being a brick, and have heard quite the opposite, Seaward, would you perhaps know someone who'd know more on that? Or have any info you'd already know?

Its closest maneuverability analogue is going to be the legacy Hornet, with one important difference - its performance isn't going to go to hell when it's loaded for a strike, because the payload's internal rather than hanging off the wings.

That's something a lot of people overlook when comparing 4th gen and 5th gen fighters. 5th gen fighters fight clean. 4th gens fight with a lot of gak hanging off the wings that impact actual combat performance versus air show performance.

Andrew1975 wrote:Are you referring to the harrier, which is a nice aircraft but nowhere near as capable as an f/a-18 ,f-16 or a-10 which the f-35 is also replacing. Jump jets are great for certain missions, but for the most part the extra weight is a limiting factor.

Which isn't a big deal at all for the mission the Marines have in mind for it. B variants exist, as everything else in the Corps does, to support the rifleman. You don't need a full strike package load to run CAS. For the better part of a decade we've been shooting even Super Hornets off the deck with one or two JDAMs under the wing, max, because you're not going to get called in to hit multiple targets during your box hop, and if you head off loaded for bear, you're just going to be dumping a gakload of ordinance into the sea before you can get back aboard.

The sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C.

The sustained turn rates haven't been reduced to anything. The performance requirement set by the program office has been reduced. We have no idea what speed, altitude, bank angle, and weight they're using as a target for sustained g, so the lowering (or raising) of that requirement doesn't tell us much at all. It could be sea level, it could be 30,000 feet. There's no one 'maximum sustained g' rate for any given aircraft, because it depends on all the stuff I mentioned above.

The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter.

Well, why's an F-16 being compared to an F-35C? You'd want to compare the F-16 to an F-35A, because that's the Air Force variant. The C's going to be the slowest accelerator of the three, because it has a larger wing. There aren't a lot of aircraft designed for naval aviation that will out-accelerate landlubber fighters. As far as transonic acceleration goes, the F-35C has the Super Hornet beat, so if the F-35C's transonic acceleration ain't good enough, we better start retiring Rhinos.

Those "several fighter pilots" wouldn't work for Boeing, would they? Because Boeing has a lot of guys on the Block III Super Hornet/Advanced Super Hornet program trying to convince the Navy to ditch the C and go with yet another version of the Bug.

On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel.

No. No, no, no, no, no. I've seen this one a lot lately, and it's one of the few claims that really make my blood boil.

What happened is a test pilot was talking about transonic testing, and described the courses they ran - accelerate up to Mach 1.2, turn, accelerate up to Mach 1.4, turn, accelerate up to Mach 1.6. Unfortunately, a large section of the blogosphere didn't consider that statement in context - namely, the context of the rather narrow confines of airspace over test ranges where you're allowed to go supersonic. The F-35 didn't need to turn to accelerate to its top speed (which would make zero sense, anyway); it needed to turn to stay inside the supersonic box. Unfortunately, a lot of people who didn't know what they were talking about read it and decided that it meant, no, in order to accelerate above Mach 1, the F-35 needs to perform some weird mating dance.

You're absolutely right about weight, though, and the potential folly of trying to cram three different services' requirements into one plane. It's full of compromises and stuff one service needs that another doesn't, or lacking in things that one service needs that another doesn't, but even as a horse built by committee, it wound up pretty damn good. Not great, not perfect, but very, very good.

I've been under the impression that the Marines are looking more into helicopter platforms rather than fixed-wing.

What does the F-35 bring to the table that the Viper does not? Is it just the extended range and the wider variety of armament?

 Kanluwen wrote:
I've been under the impression that the Marines are looking more into helicopter platforms rather than fixed-wing.

What does the F-35 bring to the table that the Viper does not? Is it just the extended range and the wider variety of armament?

Better survivability, better EW capability, better low observability, better stand-off air-to-air engagement capability, a smaller logistical footprint, and yeah, better range.

Seaward, as someone lurking in this thread, I just wanted to say thank you for giving a no BS assessment Much appreciated

Well and that is kind of the issue also. Nobody really knows what it is capable of yet and we are how many years and dollars in? Setting the bar at the performance rates of the planes you are replacing is pretty ....unimpressive. No doubt what makes the f-35 so potentially potent is its electronics. The performance of the airframe itself though is questionable, as it has mission bloat and with the requirements that were given it was always going to. The whole idea that one frame can do everything is pretty ridiculous.

I would not have a performance issue if this was just to be a multi role aircraft (I would still have a budgetary issue though). I think it may work well in that aspect, much like the f-16. The air force will have the f-22 for air superiority to fly cap for f-35s, I question the navy however not developing their own air superiority fighter in exchange for this. While I do like the super hornet, its not what is needed. What is needed is a navy air superiority/interdiction fighter with fleet defense capabilities. Unfortunately the f35 has eaten all available funding for the foreseeable future.

I only posted the other site because you had asked for some other opinions from people in the know. I honestly don't have any personal experience with the craft, but from what I have read, its not sounding promising.

The f35 comes from the same minds that brought us the Osprey. Which I still think was a terribly expensive and unnecessary project.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Well and that is kind of the issue also. Nobody really knows what it is capable of yet and we are how many years and dollars in? Setting the bar at the performance rates of the planes you are replacing is pretty ....unimpressive. No doubt what makes the f-35 so potentially potent is its electronics. The performance of the airframe itself though is questionable, as it has mission bloat and with the requirements that were given it was always going to. The whole idea that one frame can do everything is pretty ridiculous.

Nobody in the general public knows what it's really capable of yet, true, but I doubt it's accurate to say the military doesn't have a good idea. A lot of its capabilities are classified, and are going to remain that way for a few years. The F-22, for example, still doesn't use everything it's got in mock engagements with our allies, because there's still some stuff about it that we keep classified.

I would not have a performance issue if this was just to be a multi role aircraft (I would still have a budgetary issue though). I think it may work well in that aspect, much like the f-16. The air force will have the f-22 for air superiority to fly cap for f-35s, I question the navy however not developing their own air superiority fighter in exchange for this. While I do like the super hornet, its not what is needed. What is needed is a navy air superiority/interdiction fighter with fleet defense capabilities. Unfortunately the f35 has eaten all available funding for the foreseeable future.

I'd be first in line for a 5th gen Navy air superiority fighter, but I have to admit I think we'll be able to get by without one until 6th gen, which is the first point the Navy's really looking at returning to the that type of aircraft.

I only posted the other site because you had asked for some other opinions from people in the know. I honestly don't have any personal experience with the craft, but from what I have read, its not sounding promising.

Well, I definitely hope you don't feel like I'm being confrontational or anything, or even belittling your opinion. Absolutely not my intent. I'm very interested in people's impressions of it, and if you don't buy into it, you don't buy into it. That's absolutely fair. I'm just trying to explain my perspective on the plane, and why I feel that certain ways of looking at it aren't necessarily as valid as others at getting the whole picture of what it'll actually bring to the table when it finally enters service. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if it were a Mach 2.5 panty dropper, but I have to admit I don't think it needs to be in order to be an effective strike fighter.

Oh not at all. I'm not military, but I grew up with it and was surrounded by it. I know how military people get when they get a new toy. Its always the best, and you never grumble in public.

There has been a lot of unnecessary toy buying lately. I wouldn't care if the toys were worth it, or even made sense. To me it seams like spending money just for spending moneys sake. Unfortunately there is a ton of politics that go into military contracts, I find it disgusting.

Take for example the Osprey. I don't get it. The little that it offers in capabilities, it eats in handicaps and costs. Lets break it down Its a very expensive helicopter. Yes it can goes quite a bit faster, but so what. Its not faster than cargo planes, and you are never taking an Osprey into a real combat zone, its defenseless, its a giant target, its expensive and when it does get hit it can't auto-rotate. I can't really think of a many missions where its job could not be done better and or cheaper using other means. Sure there may be very specific missions where it will be a little better, but was those missions are so rare, I have to ask is it really worth the cost.

Same with the f35. I don't see where it was needed. It doesn't replace top of the line air superiority aircraft, it was never really meant to, it's basically meant to be a multi role jack of all trades. The issue is that the Navy and Airforce already have very capable Jack of all trades aircraft. The f-18 and f-16 are very capable and will be for quite some time. Now they may not be super state of the art, but really multirole utility craft don't have to be. What is out there that we are actually likely to come into conflict with that is going to be able to kick f-16s and f-18s around....not much. Are we worried about T50s and J20s? Those should never really be a strike fighters concern. Strike f-16s with f22s flying CAP are a match for anything currently on the table and anything on the horizon.

If we had taken the money spent on the f-35 and created a Naval air superiority fighter we could have extended the f18s life into, well almost forever. We do not need anything better than this to drop bombs on 90% of the world. That other 10%, well we still have the strike fighters to do it, they just need great coverage from air superiority CAP.

Just think about that. The US uses some of the worlds most capable airframes as back up utility craft......and we want to replace them? I say get the most out of them. You pay Ferrari prices for Ferraris, not utility vehicles. Spend the money on a state of the art Naval Air superiority fighters. A role which the navy really has no plane for now and doesn't have anything on the drawing board as the f35 pretty much ate any chance of getting one.

Priorities gentlemen.

I grumble in public all the time about our new toys. FMQ-19 is a piece of gak, and their trying to justify taking my job away because of it.

 djones520 wrote:
I grumble in public all the time about our new toys. FMQ-19 is a piece of gak, and their trying to justify taking my job away because of it.

You are not seriously comparing a weather gathering station to high profile front line combat equipment are you? Mundane garbage always sucks in the military. Look at your food

The early m16 was state of the art tits in the military, the latest modern marvel in combat technology using new compounds, it was self cleaning and never jammed ..... until combat proved that it wasn't and it had to be reworked.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I grumble in public all the time about our new toys. FMQ-19 is a piece of gak, and their trying to justify taking my job away because of it.

You are not seriously comparing a weather gathering station to high profile front line combat equipment are you? Mundane garbage always sucks in the military. Look at your food

Hey, it's considered a Weapon System.

 djones520 wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I grumble in public all the time about our new toys. FMQ-19 is a piece of gak, and their trying to justify taking my job away because of it.

You are not seriously comparing a weather gathering station to high profile front line combat equipment are you? Mundane garbage always sucks in the military. Look at your food

Hey, it's considered a Weapon System.

The food, I believe it.

Foods honestly not that bad for us. My last deployment I got steak and lobster every sunday.

Now... when the Army guys came through Manas, it was a little surprising we didn't have some Blue on Blue moments, when they saw how we ate compaired to how they ate while in Afghanistan...

Hey, weather's important. If the tankers are late because of bad weather on their route in, then Ace Acerson the gak-hot Hornet driver's going to be getting a tie from Martin-Baker.

 Seaward wrote:
Hey, weather's important. If the tankers are late because of bad weather on their route in, then Ace Acerson the gak-hot Hornet driver's going to be getting a tie from Martin-Baker.

That's not all we do. It's just a shame you had to put up with AG's... those guys couldn't forecast their way out of a wet paper back with a map and a hammer.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Same with the f35. I don't see where it was needed. It doesn't replace top of the line air superiority aircraft, it was never really meant to, it's basically meant to be a multi role jack of all trades. The issue is that the Navy and Airforce already have very capable Jack of all trades aircraft. The f-18 and f-16 are very capable and will be for quite some time. Now they may not be super state of the art, but really multirole utility craft don't have to be. What is out there that we are actually likely to come into conflict with that is going to be able to kick f-16s and f-18s around....not much. Are we worried about T50s and J20s? Those should never really be a strike fighters concern. Strike f-16s with f22s flying CAP are a match for anything currently on the table and anything on the horizon.

You're only thinking of the air-to-air threat, which has proven to be pretty tiny over the past 30 years. The F-35 isn't just better against air threats than F-16s and F-18s, it's also much better at defending against ground-based threats, which have been the cause of every fighter we've lost to a shoot-down since the Vietnam War, and remain the overwhelming majority of the threat we face in any given realistic future scenario.

If we had taken the money spent on the f-35 and created a Naval air superiority fighter we could have extended the f18s life into, well almost forever. We do not need anything better than this to drop bombs on 90% of the world. That other 10%, well we still have the strike fighters to do it, they just need great coverage from air superiority CAP.

I disagree strongly. Even tinpot states will have at least 1960's-era Soviet SAM sites here and there, and that technology's proven that it can shoot down both Hornets and Vipers.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
If we had taken the money spent on the f-35 and created a Naval air superiority fighter we could have extended the f18s life into, well almost forever.

No you can't, because fatigue is a very real problem, especially for a plane that gets abused by carrier operation. Military aircraft are built with a limited number of flight hours available before they're just a pile of very expensive scrap metal, and maintenance costs get really bad when you near the end of that life. At some point you have to buy new fighters anyway, so your choice is between buying new F-18s or buying new F-35s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I disagree strongly. Even tinpot states will have at least 1960's-era Soviet SAM sites here and there, and that technology's proven that it can shoot down both Hornets and Vipers.

Well, the question is how many of those tinpot states will have their SAM sites after the initial attack. Obviously we need the ability to destroy those defenses without zerg rushing a horde of expendable fighters at them, but let's be realistic here. Our recent wars have consisted of a few days of smashing stuff followed by years of fighting goat herders with AK47s that a 737 with bomb racks could handle.

The primary characteristic of a naval airplane is that it can get on and off carriers safely. That always compromises certain aspects of the design and makes it heavier than the land version of the plane.

Another problem facing carriers is lack of space to put aircraft. An plane that can perform effectively in multiple roles is extremely useful.

You can't complain about a naval fighter-bomber whose performance in air combat is slightly less than a land fighter.

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, the question is how many of those tinpot states will have their SAM sites after the initial attack. Obviously we need the ability to destroy those defenses without zerg rushing a horde of expendable fighters at them, but let's be realistic here. Our recent wars have consisted of a few days of smashing stuff followed by years of fighting goat herders with AK47s that a 737 with bomb racks could handle.

Which is why Super Hornets and Strike Eagles and the like aren't going anywhere for several decades. That doesn't negate the need for very low observable strike aircraft that can operate in a more conventional environment, however. If we ever do duke it out with China over Taiwan, for example, we're going to need stealthy strike fighters.

Or even just against Iraq analogues. Here's the the way things can go in not-very-low-observable strike packages over a "quantity over quality" air defense network, from 1991's Q-Package strike into downtown Baghdad. 2 minutes in is right before they start getting painted.

 Seaward wrote:
That doesn't negate the need for very low observable strike aircraft that can operate in a more conventional environment, however.

Sure, I'm not disputing that we need that ability. My question is how much of it do we really need? Is there a plausible enemy with air defenses that can't be handled by stealth bombers/over-the-horizon cruise missiles/F-22s with bombs/expendable drones/etc? How many F-35s do we need to accomplish this goal before we're back to Iraq/Afghanistan-style wars where a 737 with bomb racks would be a viable option (and hey, awesome endurance!).

If we ever do duke it out with China over Taiwan, for example, we're going to need stealthy strike fighters.

Is this even remotely plausible? I mean, aside from the question of whether or not anyone is going to commit political suicide by starting yet another war when they can't even get support for a much more limited attack on Syria, what does anyone have to gain here? Last I heard China doesn't have a navy capable of transporting enough troops over to do anything, and I can't see them giving up their biggest trading partner over an irrelevant point of pride like Taiwan.