While that is a very valid point. if you compare it to F14, F16 and F18 casualties that were in the same operational theatres you have to wonder how the F15 came out without losses.
The F-16/F-18 were used more and in a wider range of roles by more service branches/nations, especially ground attack. That probably has something to do with it. There weren't that many losses either. Less than a couple dozen of each if I recall over multiple 1,000's of sorties. That's nearly statistically 0. I'd have to look up F-14 losses as I don't recall any off the top of my head.
But look at how many countries are flaking on deal. Canada is having huge issues, European nations aren't seeing as the bargain it once was compared to the eurofighter, and many other nations are seeing Super Hornets as viable alternatives.
I don't really see flaking. Yes, some nations aren't jumping on it as the ideal fighter anymore, but I wouldn't say that the program is any closer to collapsing than it is to succeeding.
I agree on the price issue, it's not clear if it will be as cheap as promised, though it isn't impossible to meet the original numbers. As for the viable alternatives, I think that only really depends on the cost. It seems that many nations think that the F-35 is the better plane (or, at the very least, LM stealth marketing did their job). They just need to decide if there is enough money to get the better plane instead of the good enough plane if those two options end up costing different amounts.
Britain was said to be considering Super Hornets, but they went with the F-35C. Australia has Super Hornets, and is still pursuing the F-35. Canada passed up SH's for the F-35, and while there is some controversy, the 65 plane order is still going through. Half of the Eurofighter nations are going for the F-35, and Italy seems more willing to cut back on EF's than F-35's.
. The F-35 STOVL attempted to achieve:
Supersonic flight (the Harrier could not)true
Higher automation/safety A sign of the times, not a specific development
Less destruction to airfields Arguable for a heavier aircraft requiring more thrust
Higher simplicityReally? A seperate lift mechanism is neight light or mechanically simpler
More reliabilityThe Harriers had a 30 fold lower "ground abort rate" than the Panavia Tornados in Afghanistan. Don't use old prejudice against a plane that has been upgraded throughout it's lifetime
The F-35 uses less (or at worst, not much more) hot thrust than the Harrier for vertical landings. The Harrier can use up to 20,000 lbs thrust, nearly all jet. The F-35B used 41,000 lbf,
but the majority is from the lift fan*. It's not the force that's a threat to airbase tarmac, but the heat. The F-35 is cooler.
*I looked it up, the lift fan is the largest contributor, but it's not a huge majority. 20,000 lbf fan and 18,000 lbf jet, but the force isn't the issue as I said.
Yes, the higher automation is a result of more modern technology, but it points back to my original point in bringing it up. The F-35 can't just do what the Harrier did, it has to do more. You can't look at the Harrier doing STOVL and then turn to the F-35 and its STOVL issues and say that LM is at fault. LM might be at fault, but the difficulty in creating what they ended up designing should not be overlooked.
Alright, I'll take back mechanical simplicity, but the lift fan allowed for the F-35 to be better suited to flight outside of hover (see below **)
Reliability - How good something is, is relative. The F-35 was designed to be more reliable and easier to maintain than the planes it is replacing. My entire point in posting that list was not to show that the F-35 was better than the Harrier, but that it was different. Just because the Harrier can STOVL, doesn't mean that all STOVL is equal, easy, or completely "mastered".
You're ******** me. I'm an undergrad aerospace engineering student, if someone turned round and said we're gonna make a jet hover. One way involves piping all the thrust down the other involved strapping a fan to the turbine to produce a cool-lift system I'd tell you the plumbing was simpler. Maybe not as effective, but a damn lot simpler.
**
But you can't just route the exhaust down. You'd have to move the engine forward so that the thrust is near the center of mass. Then you need to make sure that the exhaust stays away from the inlets.
In addition, for the JSF, you'd need to make those vertical exhausts stealthy, and conceal the highly reflective engine fan from radar even though it's so close to your open inlet. Your front mounted engine would also take up weapons and fuel space.
The X-32 suffered from all of the above. It used the Harrier's system, and it seems like it was a mistake. The F-35 was able to become STOVL without giving up "fighterness". The JSF competition was not about making a plane that can hover. It was about making a stealth-multirole-high-agility-long-range-cheap-easy-to-maintain-plane, that can hover. Out of the Harrier, X-32, and F-35, only one plane managed to that [well enough in the case of the JSF's] to get built.
Obviously, but it takes 10-15 years to plan and build a carrier in the UK, do you think they're gonna make the mistake of assuming they can afford such a ship 10-15 years ahead of time again?
But I'm saying that it wasn't a mistake to think they could afford it. The economy tanked, and no one was able to predict that it would. If it didn't, they probably could have afforded two supercarriers.
And you've missed my main point entirely. Cost. America has a fleet of super carriers and is building more. My only argument for a pocket carrier is that if it means we can have 2 lower-capability ships instead of one super-carrier I would take the 2 pocket carriers because ships always go into dock for long overhauls and one carrier could leave us upto a year without a carrier force.
You said that the UK could have two pocket carriers for the cost of one super carrier, so that's what I compared. In that fictional example, the cost is the same. While it's a valid point, maintenance wasn't in your earlier post. At least not explicitly. I'll admit that I did brush aside the whole issue of a supporting fleet of tanker ships, etc, which is something you did bring up.
Russia's PAK FA?
It's like some strange combination of Su-27, YF-23 and F-22.
As long as you don't call it a rehash/copy of those three. It's a unique plane.
