STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16252 posts, RR: 52 Posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2057 times:
I was wondering what role the JSF will play with the branches they're going to, I assume they're to replace the F-16 within the Air Force and the Harrier for the Marines but what about the Navy. Are they replacements for the older F-18s, and how does the performance of the JSF compare with the F-16 and F-18.
Does the JSF represent a big improvement for the Air Force compared to the F-16, and what are it's air-air capabilities. Does the JSF make up for the gap of air-air capability between the F-14 to the Super Hornet.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
My understanding is that the JSF will serve as a replacement for both the AV-8 and the F/A-18 in the USMC, as well as "non-super" Hornets in the USN. An obvious improvement in performance as compared to the F-16 and the F-18 are the F-35's stealth capabilities. Also, the VSTOL version's ability to fly like a "regular" fighter (super sonic capability etc.) should also be an improvement as compared to the AV-8.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1947 times:
Are they still planning on replacing the A-10 with the JSF in the USAF? I've read that a few times, but it seems like it would be one of the worst ideas ever made in the history of aircraft replacement.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1904 times:
There is political debate (started by the self-proclaimed 'social democrats' who really are socialists) in the Netherlands to pull out of the program again (after only a month or so) and spend the money on nice vote-winning things like foreign aid instead.
Elections coming up here...
And even if they loose out (as seems likely, they just want to keep the debate going for another month so it's not them making the decision) the procurement decision has not been made. Personally I expect the government here to back out and buy Rafalle instead (probably in exchange for some small bribes by the French government just as happened with the helicopter deal that got us the Cougar instead of the Blackhawk (which was the aircraft the army and airforce wanted, in fact everyone wanted it except the prime minister).
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 80 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
There have been reports that the USN wants the VSTOL JSF scrapped, compelling the USMC to go with the CV version, thus lowering the cost.
Better yet for the USN, maybe forcing the USMC to take some F-18E/F's too.
If that was to happen, it would wreck plans for JSF to replace the UK Harriers, and force the UK to go with conventional carriers for the CVF programme.
More expensive, and the last time the UK operated conventional carriers was in 1978 when the old Ark Royal decommissioned.
It has always been a possibility, hence the projected designs for CVF having included conventional carriers as well as VSTOL versions.
Thales, one of two contractors bidding for CVF (the other is BAE), have unveiled their latest thinking, with two separate islands, and an angled flight deck.
Hopefully this will be resisted, apart from other innovations, the VSTOL JSF is a real leap forward, (and the reason the UK joined the programme at a very early stage), the requirement for an all-new dedicated VSTOL design being expensive and having a limited market, (USMC perhaps, 150-200 for the UK, and perhaps 50 more for the Spanish and Italian navies).
Peterba69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 70 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Just a minor tech. point. It's "STOVL" for JSF. The prototypes did takeoff vertically (check Lockheeds' site for video, sorry I don't have the link right here) but would be too heavy to do it in combat.
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1850 times:
Not to be the dork on this topic, but I'm not sure "replace" is quite the right word. Huh? Well, think about it.
To say that a new weapon system is a "replacement" seems to suggest that it was built only with the past in mind. Do we really buy a new airplane to maintain the status quo?
Granted, the JSF will assume some of roles of the current fleet, but it is also designed with the future in mind. Our senior military and civilian leaders have surely held many "meetings of the minds" to determine what capabilities a 21st century fighter will need and have applied those findings to this new jet.
Therefore, the JSF isn't really "replacing" any particular aircraft. Just like the F-22 isn't really "replacing" the F-15C. It will simply assume that aircraft's role while also adding some other capabilities(i.e. air-to-ground...a capability not possessed by the F-15C.)
Again, not trying to nitpick, but just an idea to add to the discussion.