China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Jet: Shenyang J-31

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:53 am

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:40 pm

ladajo wrote:Well, I guess that you will have to take it on faith that I know what is under the hood. I am also sure that you do not.

In an integrated fight environment, F-35 is serious leverage.
Engines do not make a airframe 5th Gen.

He is right, whats under the hood is what makes this bird a raptor

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:04 pm

Read the analysis form Australia and why they're recommending Australia not buy any F-35's. It cannot compete with any of the 2 engine fighters. It is hopelessly outperformed by them. You can strut about the superior avionics all you like, but those can be built into older fighters and indeed, we do routinely upgrade our fighters as they go through their normal service life. Advances in computers, radar, sensors and automation all get built into older airframes eventually. These are not a reason to recommend the F-35.

Just saying again, the primary recommend for the F-35 was that it would be cheap, and it is no longer cheap. It's a failed program.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:43 pm

THe point you are missing is that the flight package is integrated with the airframe. You cannot retro the capability and density achieved backwards into older airframes. It would not even be close.

If we were talking about drag racers, then yes, two engines beats one. But we are not.

If your argument were to hold true, then every over-engined Soviet fighter built should've ruled the skies. Too bad they didn't.

As I recall, we were not arguing cost, we were arguing capability.
As an all ronud paltform, F-35 is friggin capable. It was not designed to be the end-all in ground strike, nor the end all in air combat. But you would have to be an idiot to think that it is not an extremely dangerous opponent. And even more so if you face a squadron.

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:46 pm

Yep

Totally agree. For us the Super Hornet makes more sense in the short term since we already fly the predecessor.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:07 am

And the E/F (& supporting G) birds are certainly capable. Especially for strike. They can haul a load, and have some legs. The problem is when you get into deck and hanger spotting. They eat up some real-estate. Now you marry that math to ordnance/airframe and sortie planning and you run into some limits for a heavy workload. But that is only an issue for those that fly them off Carriers. It is less so, but still somewhat of a problem for airfield spots.