David Hingtgen

It's often said that a key decision (especially on the part of "pilot imput) on YF-22 vs YF-23 was that stealth isn't really all that great. A lot of people did not like even a slight trade-off of agility for more stealth. They basically felt the YF-23 depended too much on stealth, despite still equalling the F-16 in agility. They wanted the F-22 because it had that extra little bit of agility. So what does that say for the F-35? Less stealthy than the -23 and the -22, *and* less agile than the 16/22/23? (F-35 is close to the 16's agility according to Lockheed, but certainly doesn't equal or surpass---otherwise they'd point out it being superior every five seconds--but it's not, so they say it's COMPARABLE) Also--stealth isn't just radar. It's IR as well. And a single big-a$$ exhaust like the 35 has can't have all that low of an IR signature, no matter how many serrated edges you put on it. If the -23 had a lower RCS, it had a LOT lower IR signature. And the -22's flattened vectoring nozzles sure look superior to the -35's. F-35's are slow as hell. Mach 1.5 max, or thereabouts. I don't think they can supercruise, need afterburner. (At least it did on the NOVA show). The original, very first 1986 concepts was for a supersonic Harrier replacement. Not a stealth, supercruising mini-F22.

While AIM-9X's SHOULD have lock-after-launch like ASRAAM's, especially for the F-35's use, they don't. Never expect "common sense and logic" to apply to the military!

This pic clearly shows how an F-22 angles out Sidewinders so their IR seekers can get a good view: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...-22-000320a.jpg They can do this due to the trapeze the AIM-9's are mounted on, and presumably the YF-23 would have had something similar, having trapeze-mounted AMRAAM's. F-35's however, have no trapeze's, only rails. Couldn't mount one on the inner door, and putting a trapeze in the air-to-ground spot would certainly reduce clearance enough to preclude 2,000lb JDAM's, a key advantage the 35 has over the 22. (Since the 35 needs bulged bay doors to hold 2,000 pounders, the clearance has to be tiny)

Size isn't the problem. F-35's don't have AIM-9's (any version) because a bay-mounted one would have its seeker blocked. ASRAAM's work due to their lock-after-launch ability.

Airbrake holes--I say go for it. Though holes would fairly pointless with the VF-0's design. But as we all know, many aerodynamic features on valks are for looking cool, not being practical. Holes only show up on airbrakes, and many airbrakes have holes. (Just not airbrakes mounted behind the cockpit, like F-15/VF-0/Flanker) Flaps---no idea. Would need good drawings of the underside of the wings. I lost my scans of the VF-0 long ago. Either way, I *seriously* doubt they'd be F-14-style. F-14's are unique among all aircraft in the entire world, 1903-2004. There's split flaps, zap flaps, kruger flaps, hinged/simple flaps, fowler flaps, and F-14 Tomcat flaps. And from the pic above, they lack the eyebrow doors, a major feature of the F-14's flaps. As for being regular fowler flaps--possible, VF-0's got tiny wings, and its approach speed would be very high. But valks tend to be amazingly light for their size, reducing their stall speed. But VF-0's aren't QUITE valks, technology-wise. If someone's got a good pic of the VF-0 with its flaps down, please post!

Well, it's 25mm, so I presume the gun itself would be larger than the M61A series, thus presumably larger than the SUU-23 pod. But likely smaller than the 30mm GPU-5 (which is pretty big).

Stamen0083: based on the pics/drawings at http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml, it looks like there's mere inches between the doors of the weapons bays. Maybe a foot. But certainly not "gunpod-wide". F-35 wasn't designed to accomodate anything there AFAIK, the original plan for a gunpod was an internal one, displacing a JDAM. Now, if they mean more like "aft of the weapons bay, with just the tip of the barrel poking between the aft ends of the doors" then that'd make sense. Could just be semantics issue of what "between" means. (I'm still amazed an F-16 can cycle its gear with a center tank attached).

Not really. YF-23 is basically superior in all aspects, whereas the YF-19/21 are 50/50, each superior in some categories, inferior in others.

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/magazi...-apr-2004-3.jpg is classic VF-31 colors. I'd say early 90's. Sigh, I think all non-canon valks are "doomed" to only wear F-14 colors. There ARE other squadrons you know... Hmmn, first good look I've had of the SV-51's lift fans. Of course, F-35-style fans SO wouldn't work in that configuration. (Unless you've got one heck of a complicated drive-shaft, universals, and engine accessory drives--IMHO it'd be much easier and practical to just make dedicated lift-jets)

I am beyond shocked that their could be a centerline pylon on an F-35, much less BETWEEN the weapons bays. If that's the case, 10 bucks says that you can't open the weapons bays while carrying that gunpod. Which'd mean you have 0 internal payload.

F-35's don't have centerline pylons. No stealth does. Price seems to be the recurring thing here. My point is, regardless of the unit cost of the F-35 (low because there's what, 3000+ on order now?) the program cost is still high. Billions to develop, plus 40 mil per plane isn't "cheap" when you could have just NOT developed it, and use the billions of development money for LOTS of F/A-22's, and develop the FB-22 and F-22N. F-117's only cost a LITTLE more than F-35's, most sites I check give dollar amounts in the 40's of millions. And we've already developed them. "Half price" planes only count if you've already spent the money to buy them. What's cheaper? A plane you've developed, and buying 10 of them for 200 million each-----or a plane you need to develop, and spend 5 billion doing so, and then buying 10 for 100 million each? (Totally fake numbers, but it illustrates my point) It's not like we have a bunch of planes lined up at the dealership, and the F-35 is almost as good for half the price. It's the "we'll have it in a few years, but you'll have to give us a few billion to design it first" model. While the F-22 is "coming next week" and the F-117 and F-16 are "here, ready to go, quite capable, and affordably priced".

I was checking out some sites, and found that the UK plans on making 4x ASRAAM the standard load on theirs. INTERESTING. Combined with the ASRAAM's BVR potential, maybe the UK wants a mid-range fighter?

Yup, F-35 has 25mm gun. (Don't know why, F-22 didn't get it, and USAF isn't going to use it for CAS) The original plan was for Navy and USMC ones to have the internal gunpod, but it seems the "stealthy" (we'll see) external pod is the new idea. At least for the Marines. Navy may still go with the internal, for the Navy wants stealth more than the other 2 forces. (Since there's no other stealthy Navy planes--the F-35 MUST be stealthy, or its pointless) Shin---F-15E's are just as good as F-15C's for fighting. CFT's are removable, I've posted pics of CFT-less F-15E's on this board in the past. They're almost always attached, but they are NOT permanent. A late-model F-15E, with CFT's and LANTIRN removed, and no back-seater, would actually out-perform an early F-15C, for though the F-15E is inherently heavier, the later ones have noticeably more powerful engines, more than making up the weight difference. F-15C's aren't being retrofitted, since the improvement is marginal and very costly. (It's effectively "free" to order new planes with that engine, but WAY too expensive to order new engines for planes already built) F-15E's do carry fewer bullets though. Like 75% of an F-15C's.

>>>But it's cheap, and we're already replacing the F-15 with the F-22. We sure as heck aren't replacing F-15E's with F-22's. Strike Eagle will be around for a LONG time. >>>If they continued to build only the F-22 we'd end up with a significantly smaller force in the air, not to mention the only branch of service benefitting from the increased F-22 production would be the Air Force. Gotta disagree there. USAF F-15's pretty much single-handedly cleared the air in Desert Storm, to allow Navy and Marine strike planes to do their job. Bunch of F-22's would do the same. It was easier just to add in my reply to the quote above.

Yes, the F-35 is mainly a BVR fighter. That's my primary argument as to why it's pointless. We've got LOTS of those, and the Raptor's coming, and will be way better at it. F-35 is supposed to be (nowadays) some sort of F-117/F-16/Harrier replacement. So how is a BVR AMRAAM-launcher a replacement for those? They don't do that, thus the F-35 isn't replacing them very well. And on day 2 and later (99% of the time) when it's not stealthy and out bombing, it's not really any better than conventional aircraft. F-15E's can carry a heck of a lot more stuff, and we've already got "bought and paid for" tons of Falcons and Hornets. Also, most F-35's are not STOVL. Our STOVL capabilities won't be increased much overall. Yes, if the USAF bought 1,000 with lift-fans things would be different, but they haven't. USAF ones aren't stovl. USN ones on a carrier are no different than a Hornet on a carrier except for the first day. USMC order is small. Finally, the military has X amount of money. Instead of using a lot of it on F-35's, we could have just tripled the F/A-22 order, and have an ungodly powerful air superiority force. Then we could send in everything we ever wanted, after the first hour. Day 2? F/A-22's inherently carry more stuff, being bigger. And stay stealthy with an almost-decent internal bombload. Or, if you lose the stealth---they can carry more than the F-35. Bigger planes carry more stuff. Why spend billions developing what is basically a mini-F22, when you could just buy more F-22's? As for the delta-winged F/A-22---the FB-22, and yes it's very similar to the X-44. But the X-44 is mainly a tailless manueverability experiment which looks like an FB-22. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...craft/fb-22.htm FB-22's lose vectoring (kinda pointless on a bomber, less stealthy and greater IR signature---better to remove it if not necessary), X-44's keep it.

Don't forget the "E"--- www.dixieart.com Lots of people buy airbrushes and supplies from there.

I myself went the "Tamiya clear yellow over silver" for my PG W0C, though that's pretty "goopy" stuff too. Thin the heck out of it IMHO, and spray thinly and evenly. It will be VERY apparent if the amount of paint over an area is uneven. Don't try brushing it unless you're felling lucky. Honestly I didn't like the final color very much (their yellow is too green and too orange, simultaneously). I'd try the foil route, or look for craft paint golds, they make some quite finely-ground ones. Finally, the cheap, generic, tiny-bottle Testor's gold actually is a quite nice paint to work with, and very finely ground. Not quite "chrome silver" smooth, but among the smoothest I know of, for any paint anywhere. Color's rather coppery, but it is about the "smoothest" non-silvery paint you can get, if you don't want to try to foil the curved shoulder pieces. I wonder why Bandai didn't do like they did with SO many of their 1/100 Wing kits---gold-plate the parts. It's exactly the look most people are going for. And they could do like their MG Hyaku-Shiki and arrange the parts so the "scars" are on the back-side of the parts. Only 3 gold parts in the whole kit, but very important, and should have been plated. (Ironically, Bandai's gold is actually clear yellow over chrome, but it looks nicer than most people can do, since they vacuum-plate the chrome)

Want a truly kick-a$$ and cheap to design multi-role plane? F-15E/ACTIVE. Hyper-agile high-speed strike fighter. No stealth, but rocks in all other categories. Or, taking advantage of their overall lower weight, F-15C/ACTIVE's fpr dedicated air-to-air. We're not getting enough F-22's to replace the -15, might as well upgrade the -15 fleet. The great thing about ACTIVE nozzles, is that you can retrofit it to any plane with F100, or F110 engines. Which is most fighters. And there's certainly no lack of F-18 stabs to convert to F-15 canards. Harrier replacement? F-35 WITH A GUN. A big one. And maybe a bubble canopy. (C'mon, it can't be that hard to retrofit--the Sea Harrier had its seat raised a few inches and a bubble canopy added, to give much improved visibility over the first attack Harriers) It was subsequently adopted for the AV-8B, too. Anything else, that delta-winged F/A-22 poposal. The F-16XL rocked, even if it wasn't chosen. Now imagine an F/A-22XL. Could even surpass a Strike Eagle.

I don't really have any experience with their forums, but these are the best sites I know, I'd presume the forums would be as good as the site: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/ http://www.hyperscale.com/ http://www.modelingmadness.com/

Heck no, F-32 was inferior in most all aspects. It would have been faster, since Boeing wanted to change it to a delta-winged design for the actual in-service model. (A "minor" change according to Boeing--yeah, and changing a 747 to a delta-wing would be another "minor" change for Boeing) And had it been selected, the Navy would have asked for a Super-Duper Stealth Hornet the next day. No way they'd allow that sailor-sucker on board. Anyways---I'm betting (like 99% confident) F-117's are much stealthier than F-35's. Certainly has higher IR, and rear and frontal RCS. F-117's were designed for PURE stealth. It's payload is tiny, but it's very very good at what it does. Ok, here's the scenario as I see it: F-35's flat-out aren't designed nor intended for a dogfight, ever. No rear vision, no gun, no Sidewinders. So it's for BVR AMRAAM launching on day 1 of the war. Well, F-22's can do that a heck of a lot better. If we need air superiority, F-35's are not going to be the plane of choice. F-15/16/22 will do that. So now we're on day two, where we load them up with external stuff and toss their stealth. Well, now they're like an F-16, but less agile and less able to defend themselves. Some more range and payload, if stuffed to the gills, but nothing worth writing home about compared the 1,000 F-16's we've already bought and paid for. But hey, we can launch them from carriers! Well, now we've got more Super Hornets than we know what to do with, with a pretty darn big payload, 2 engines, and notably more stealthy than any other fighter but the "stealth" fighters. So what's the point of having them? They're multi-role, but they're not so great at either one. The F-15E works, because it's an AWESOME fighter, and an AWESOME bomber. The F-16 and F-18's are smaller, but equally good fighters with the latest electronics, and top-of-the-line fighters. They could be used as a NEW role for a STOVL plane, to COMPLEMENT the Harrier. But it's not really good enough to replace anything in any role, and certainly not everything in every role. While the Super Hornet isn't the best choice for fleet defense or an interceptor, you can't deny that it's a very good strike fighter and dogfighter (though the range still sucks). But the F-35's got nothing notable.

What to add, what to add... Um, let's see. Oooh! YF-23's have a very low IR signature. And not just the engines, everything. Fewer edges=less friction. And the whole thing's sleek as hell. Low drag, thus low friction thus low heat. YF-23 is very stealthy, both radar AND IR. Sidewinders (and all its cousins) still account for most missile kills, not radar-guided. (And that would imply most kills are made at shorter ranges, too, not 20 miles out) Having a very cool exhaust, and little leading edge friction, makes it hard for even the most advanced IR missile to lock on and track. Cannons--such a basic, reliable, simple thing to add. Little reason not to. ESPECIALLY CAS. Bombs and missiles have a blast radius, guns do not. Anecdote time: F-14 pilot (maybe the RIO) shotdown in Iraq. Iraqi's literally chasing him down in a truck, but an A-10 comes in and nigh-vaporizes the truck from behind with its cannon, yards away from the pilot, saving him so he could be rescued soon thereafter. Couldn't do that with a bomb, blast radius would have likely killed the F-14 pilot. Guns==real fast, real accurate. CAS is about operating CLOSE to friendlies. You can use a 4,000lb LGB when you're in the middle of nowhere, or hundreds of yards away from "the good guys". But not when you're talking about second-by-second changes in the situation. Only a gun can be aimed that fast, without having to worry about collateral damage, etc.

I'd just like to bring up that Russia did a little "exercise" last week involving ICBM's and cruise missiles, including Tu-160 supersonic runs across the Atlantic, and simulated attacks against carrier battle groups. (it's AMAZING what's not reported on TV--good thing I use the net for news, especially military news). They didn't say they were practicing on how to attack *US* carrier battle groups specifically, but I don't believe anyone else has any. They said it was "anti-terrorism" practice. Uh huh. ICBM's and CVN runs. "But we don't need F-14's, there's no more threat". Yeah, well, tell that to Russia. NOTHING is ever eliminated as a threat. We will always need close-in dogfighters, high-speed low-alt bombers, and high-speed dedicated interceptors, "multi-role" planes, air superiority, strategic bombers, etc. No plane can do it all, few can do 2.

I'd like to reiterate Coota0's reply to imode. They've been saying that for 50+ years, and everytime we "eliminate" the dogfight with all our technology, we get our asses kicked by someone who didn't. And the existence of airplanes dropping bombs meant no more wars would be fought with troops on the ground... Angel's Fury: F-35's carry AMRAAM's. That's it. 2 of them, usually. So much for air superiority.

Shin Densetsu: F-35's don't carry Sidewinders either. No AIM-9's, and no gun=NO dogfighting. So it's superior agility compared to the Harrier is worthless there. Anubis---F-16 Block 60's will likely have CFT's. Plus a lot of little things like the dorsal spine for more electronics (mainly ECM I think, probably some data-link stuff, etc). More powerful engine of course, GE and PW come out with new versions all the time. 32,500lbs on the latest GE. Possibly an integrated FLIR/LANTIRN combined with upgraded radar, to eliminate all the pods hanging off the intake like the 40's and 50's have. Greece already has block 50's with CFT's, being the last 50's built. UAE has block 60's without CFT's, but all the electronic upgrades. There likely won't be any USAF Block 60's, but if there are, you can bet on CFT's. F-16 CFT's hold 450 gallons. It's more to replace the underwing tanks rather than add range, so you can use more pylons for weapons. Finally--where's Nied?

Another "completely forgotten" basic lesson of air combat design: Go look at a F-35's cockpit (especially a STOVL variant), and tell me how much rearward vision the pilot has. Stealth is nothing if someone can fly right up behind you with 30mm cannons and shoot you full of holes.