F-35B may well become a What-if program !

[pwagner]

Time to resurrect the Tornado 2000 proposal?

I found a better picture but the text is in, um, Swedish I think

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth4f.htm

So, what was the Tornado 2000?

Paul

[Fulcrum]

I know this is off-topic but...

Anybody remember the Mig-29M?

[GTX]

Tornado 2000:



Regards,

Greg

[Litvyak]

Time to resurrect the Tornado 2000 proposal?

I found a better picture but the text is in, um, Swedish I think

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth4f.htm

So, what was the Tornado 2000?

Paul

It's in Slovak. If you really really want I could brute-force my way through it and make a quick summary translation, but it'd be very much a hack-translation - of Slavic languages I speak Serbian/Croatian and a bit of Russian which let me get the gist of it, I have Slovak blood but that doesn't help with the language.

[Maverick]

So its ok for you to bury a weapon system before it reaches IOC but its not ok for me to defend it before IOC? Now we have a "well lets wait and see" attitude?  Every detractor here has dismissed the F-35B without it being in an operational squadron for even a single day. but now we don't want to jump to any conclusions?

How is that fair?

and how will it be obsolete in 9 years but the typhoon and rafale and f-15 wont be? 

I compare an F-35B to an AV-8B because thats the aircraft it is replacing, I like it because it better than the Av-8B. So F-35B>AV-8B. you may not have to deal with AV-8Bs problems but we do. So I don't shed any tears that we are getting a better airplane that will lead to higher survivability even if it isn't perfect (the F-22)

Ben, I don't think at any point that I've buried the F-35.  I merely point out the rather long litany of flaws that has been attributed to the program thus far.  I have said that for the role it is designed, if it meets expectations it will be fine for the US but not the RAAF.

Neither am I jumping to conclusions, I am pointing out possible scenarios. The program is overbudget & behind schedule and the way these things go, that usually increases not decreases.

At no point did I say the Typhoon, et al wouldn't be obsolete within a similar timeframe, but those platforms are currently serving and being operationally tested unlike the F-35.  In however many years, where will similar systems be?  Typhoon & it's like may have been replaced by something newer (unlikely, but possible), whilst if the F-35 continues to drag its heels it still won't have achieved what the other aircraft have already achieved (ie: operational service).

Eurofighter has the opportunity to refine their aircraft in service, make software upgrades, etc, a rather more important evolution than an untried prototype's visits to a base to see the new uberfighter taxi around a bit.  These upgrades will be implemented and no doubt improved upon time and time again before the F-35's first entry into service let alone upgrade evolution.

I think 'let's wait & see' is a rather generous comment by myself.  If it's that good (when it gets here) lets see it happen, if it's not, well that's some time we can't get back.  That being said, I'm sure it'll be fine for the Marines (if they get the -35B, the most logical choice obviously altho one fraught with difficulties), fine for the USAF as a -16 replacement, fine for the USN as a Bug replacement of some description no doubt, but it won't be fine for the RAAF.  It's not what we need pure and simple and the more LM & others try to force that idea onto a lot of people the more said people will buck back.  But I guess that's fair??

Regards,

Mav

[Maverick]

The F-117 was a first-strike platform. The F-35, not so much. Sure, the Chinese will whine about it, but in fact the F-35 is just a multirole aircraft with increased survivability. Stealth helps when defending as well, and is a major factor in allowing the limited resources of the ADF to be a credible deterrent against larger air forces.

And I don't buy the assertion that the F-35 'needs the backing of an entire war machine' in any greater degree than other aircraft.

You're again using past conflicts as a model for the next. That didn't work very well for the US at the end of the Cold War. The next conflict could very well be not an insurgency, but a resource grab.

Why shouldn't the Chinese complain if Australia possesses that capability since you seem to think that they'll waltz over the border in a few years?  We seem quite happy selling our resources to China willy nilly but obviously it's not enough.

As to stealth helping a defending air force, that's an interesting concept, sort of lost when the defenders launch their weapons tho isn't it?

As for the F-35s requirements, one of the first things touted is it's 'netcentric' capability, allowing various platforms to interact to provide a 'god's eye' picture of the war environment or at least that's what we're told.  Without the additional assets, UAVs, AWACs, etc that give it this capability, what are its advantages over anything else beyond the much vaunted stealth?  Of course we won't mention how the Serbs knocked down an F-117 (also a stealth airframe) with a gun... Ooops?

As for using the past, we seem to be at that other nation's beck & call when it comes to invasions/interventions and I can't see that particular habit changing any time soon, ergo we will fight unwinable insurgencies, not resource grabs.

As to whether the US would help during a 'resource grab', who knows?  They certainly didn't want to intervene during Konfrontasi against two friends (ie: Indonesia & the Commonwealth).  Who's to know what the reason will be this time?  Unless it's going to 'war' on the other side of the globe.

Oh and by the way, learning from history has its advantages also, that much has been taught over the decades.

Regards,

Mav

[PR19_Kit]

This thread is bidding fair to take over the entire Forum! 

Perhaps we should start the 'F-35 Discussion Forum'?

[rickshaw]

This thread is bidding fair to take over the entire Forum! 

Perhaps we should start the 'F-35 Discussion Forum'?

I suggest we all cool it for a while.  I'm unsure why this particular aircraft excites everybody so much and arouses passions pro and for.   I suspect that in reality it will prove to be an adequate aircraft for the roles envisaged for it.  It might even be a great one.  I rather doubt it will be the dog that some people appear to think.

Remember folks, all designs are the results of compromises.   Nothing is perfect.  Everything will have its flaws.   We'll just have to see before making final judgements.

My question for the USMC is though - what is wrong with the Harrier?  If you're looking for a bomb truck its more than adequate IMO and isn't that all the USMC really needs?   

[Mossie]

So, what was the Tornado 2000?

Paul

It was looked at as a baseline study for the UK's Future Offensive Aircraft program, to update the Tornado to give more stealthy characteristics.  Range was also increased by adding a couple of ADV style fuselage plugs with extra fuel & a semi-conformal ventral tank.  It was looked at as a baseline study for the UK's Future Offensive Aircraft program.

[Thorvic]

Ok then locking the thread as these discussions are more suited for the likes of Key Publishing Forum, don't forget this is What-If these thread are supposed to stimulate build ideas not get dragged into the politics of it all. Yes it happens but at some stage we have to stop it before things get out of hand as it tends to be an area where members do disagree and the tone of threads can rapidly turn sour.