Aussies F35 will lose out to PAK FA

[amalakas]

I never figured out why the F22 programme was stopped.
in my (poor) mind, it would make sense to make an export version, in varied modes,

ie. either watered down stealth or watered down avionics and intelligence on the plane and sell it. The list of customers for the F22 would and correct me if wrong be more than twice the length of the F35 customers.

UK,Netherlands,Italy,Greece,Turkey,Israel,Japan,Taiwan,Saudi,South Corea, Finland, Norway, lmao but even the russians would buy a few.. ( )

That would drive the cost of the plane down and allow for the continuation and evolution of the F22 .. which makes so much more sense than the F35. The jsf is unlikely to repeat the success of the F16..

 

[gambit]

I never figured out why the F22 programme was stopped.
in my (poor) mind, it would make sense to make an export version, in varied modes,

ie. either watered down stealth or watered down avionics and intelligence on the plane and sell it. The list of customers for the F22 would and correct me if wrong be more than twice the length of the F35 customers.

UK,Netherlands,Italy,Greece,Turkey,Israel,Japan,Taiwan,Saudi,South Corea, Finland, Norway, lmao but even the russians would buy a few.. ( )

That would drive the cost of the plane down and allow for the continuation and evolution of the F22 .. which makes so much more sense than the F35. The jsf is unlikely to repeat the success of the F16..

Before we predict the inferiority of the F-35 compared to the F-16 and its quite unexpected international success, we should examine why the F-16 became so successful in the first place. As a standalone fighter, it is not the fastest, has not the highest payload, and has not the longest range. Probably the only thing exceptional about the F-16 is its avionics which we must take into consideration the aircraft's small size. What make the F-16's avionics package exceptional, from the aircraft's inception to the current evolution, is precisely because of this disparity: the avionics package is under utilized.

Most post WW II nation-states became more interested in territorial defense than territorial acquisition. I have pointed out before here and will repeat: That there is nothing wrong with being a 'jack-of-all-trades' provided that your version is capable of achieving higher standards consistently across all the criteria that made up the list of fighter aircraft trade than other versions. The Soviets tried and failed and only after decades did the Europeans managed, under no stress of threats from the Soviets, to create their own 'jack-of-all-trades' fighters like the Typhoon or the Rafale. But by now, the F-16 established itself as proven over time and in combat that it remained the favorite among nation-states seeking to have a defense that is best applicable to their view of territorial defense.

Why does this disparity exist and is it necessary? Every pilot knows there are operational differences between take-off, flight and landing. Before the advent of avionics pilots have to make these transitions in their heads. Air is denser at lower altitudes requiring different force levels on the controls, for example. Geophysical structures such as mount Everest or meteorological structures such as a storm mass affects wind and air flow and the pilot must compensate. Now take in ground attacks versus one-on-one aerial combat and this is why we have the world wars, Korea and Vietnam era fighters that focused mainly on aerial combat with ground attack capability as secondary concern.

Modern avionics changed all that by first: Taking some burdens of normal flight off the pilot. Second: Redirect all that electronics capabilities into whatever task it is that the pilot want. The result is a massive disparity between the combined intelligence of the human pilot and the avionics versus what the airframe itself can do. Whether that airframe has one or two engines and how many hardpoints on the wings are irrelevant, this combined intelligence can handle most hardware configurations. How to redirect all this power is where we have switching configurations like HOTAS and ergonomics and the list goes on. But the main point is that modern day avionics raised the bars of all the tasks that made up a 'jack-of-all-trades' fighter platform and that is exactly what most post WW II nation-states want.

Can the F-35 replace the F-16? Absolutely. But whether the F-16 will be supplanted by the F-35 or not is an issue of political will, not of technology, by the F-35's potential client nation-states, including US. Point-for-point, the F-35 already surpassed the F-16 when it comes to the disparity between avionics capability and physical limitation, which is the airframe itself. This is why it is, in my view, a flawed policy to sell any 'watered down' or 'export' version of the F-22. In a way of looking at it, the F-35 is that 'watered down' or 'export' version. The F-22 is designed for one thing the WW II era fighter pilot wanted: To clear the sky of enemy aircrafts, fighters or bombers or dirigibles it does not matter. If it flies, shoot it down. Focus all that Cray-like supercomputing power to that task. I want the US to remain supreme in that task.

 

[amalakas]

Can the F-35 replace the F-16? Absolutely. But whether the F-16 will be supplanted by the F-35 or not is an issue of political will, not of technology, by the F-35's potential client nation-states, including US. Point-for-point, the F-35 already surpassed the F-16 when it comes to the disparity between avionics capability and physical limitation, which is the airframe itself. This is why it is, in my view, a flawed policy to sell any 'watered down' or 'export' version of the F-22. In a way of looking at it, the F-35 is that 'watered down' or 'export' version. The F-22 is designed for one thing the WW II era fighter pilot wanted: To clear the sky of enemy aircrafts, fighters or bombers or dirigibles it does not matter. If it flies, shoot it down. Focus all that Cray-like supercomputing power to that task. I want the US to remain supreme in that task.

Well, can't argue with that. This a matter of mindset and political views. In that sense yes, the F35 can be considered a watered down version of what the F22 could offer (but imho not of the F22).
It is very good and very honest to declare that one desires that kind of capability to themselves only, to maintain the edge. That I understand.
Isn't there however more to the success of the F16 than what you describe? The F16 is a superb plane, a fine design, capable of (as you say) equip an entire air-force by itself changing from striker to fighter with ease. But can the F35 do that? I hope it can, as inevitably the F35 will be purchaced in my neigbourhood as well.

 

[gambit]

Isn't there however more to the success of the F16 than what you describe? The F16 is a superb plane, a fine design, capable of (as you say) equip an entire air-force by itself changing from striker to fighter with ease. But can the F35 do that? I hope it can, as inevitably the F35 will be purchaced in my neigbourhood as well.

Absolutely. The F-35's internal load alone is enough to at least do serious damages to most targets when low radar observability is the highest consideration. When low radar observability is secondary, its external load configurations are no less varied than the F-16.

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity