Really? An F-18 Super Hornet Rivaling an F-35?

[Mike OTDP]

It's a big mess.

Let's get one big thing straight. The "F"-35 is not a fighter aircraft. It's an attack aircraft. A bomb-dropper with significant secondary air-to-air capability. To be quite honest, so is E/F. Boeing has a proposal out there for a pod that looks like a centerline fuel tank, but is a weapons pod with a FLIR in the nose. If there was enough interest, a reworking of the pylons to eliminate the toe-out mould be desirable.

The real problem is that a good case can be made that F-35 should have been cancelled five years ago, replaced with a mix of additional F-22s and late-model F-16s. But it wasn't. The real question is whether the program is cost-effective. And whether it's possible to separate the airframe from the very flossy (and expensive) avionics. An F-35B airframe with an F-18 or F-16 radar would be useful and cheap.

[Rich]

Other than not having an internal weapons bay, compromising stealth a bit, The F-15 SE with thrust vectoring would be every bit of a match to an F-22 in a dog fight in my opinion.

If a pilot gets close enough to dogfight in an F-22 he should be court-marshaled. Yeah, it can dogfight, but anyone who gets close enough to be seen, much less merge is incompetent to fly the aircraft.

You use that giant radar and Aim-120s to club the enemy like a baby seal. From very far away. And from 10,000 foot more ceiling than he could ever hope to own.

Depends on the ROE. When Congress mandates visual ID before attack, BVR capabilities kind of go out the window.

[NVGdude]

The real problem is that a good case can be made that F-35 should have been cancelled five years ago, replaced with a mix of additional F-22s and late-model F-16s. But it wasn't. The real question is whether the program is cost-effective. .

The USAF doesn't want the -35 and never has.

You are 100% right that the USAF version of the F-35 should have been scrapped and replaced by more f-22s and Block 52+ F-16s.

The problem is the USAF is paying the penalty for the USN screwing the pooch on every opertunity to put an LO platform on a carrier. The Navy needs the F-35. They could have had the A-12, but screwed that up. They could have had a navalized F-22, they screwed that up, Northrop even proposed a navalized F-23. None of those came to fruition and now they are stuck with retrofitted super-bugs which really can't do the job against a first tier competitor.

The Navy can't afford a program on their own, so just like the Wonderlemmon the USAF get's dragged along to help pay for it.

The STOVL version for the USMC is damn useful, especially given the age of the Harrier. Between age and complexity, the Harrier accounts for more accidents then the next three dangerous airframes combined.

[Mike OTDP]

Not quite. I'll be the first to say that the A-12 program was screwed up - mostly by McDonnell-Douglas and General Dynamics low-balling the contract. But Cheney cancelled it - before the vendors were in breach of contract. They're still in court over that mess.

But the "F"-35 was very much on the USAF wish list. The basic desirement from the USAF was a stealthy F-16. The Marines wanted a STOVL F-18C. The Navy? They wanted a high-end airplane, but were told that JSF was going to be the TACAIR program. They could take what it provided, or go without.

[NVGdude]

But the "F"-35 was very much on the USAF wish list. The basic desirement from the USAF was a stealthy F-16.

The USAF was basically told The F-22 is too expensive at $120 mil/copy. You will take the JSF and LIKE IT whether you like it or not. That was back when JSF was supposed to be $35 mil a copy. Now the damn thing costs more than the F-22 but is far less capable.