undefined | Better HN

0 pointsangry_octet19d ago0 comments

It is actually pretty clear. Getting there in the end doesn't mean it was a good choice.

The range of the F-35 is too low for the Navy, because it sits in the F-16 concept. But there is no fighter/interceptor split in the AF either, and the range is too low for AF as well.

So now we have the F-47, a very belated ack that the F-35 has short legs. But it also won't fix the problem because it is too focused on the F-22 role, absolute air dominance against e.g. J-20.

No one should call it success. It is what it is.

0 comments

greedo19d ago

The F-35C has greater range than the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-16, and the F-22. It's only exceeded by the F-35A and the F-15EX. And "no fighter/interceptor split"? What does that even mean? The USAF hasn't had a true interceptor since the F-106 was retired.

The F-35 achieved exactly what was written on the tin. To be a stealthy replacement for the F-16, A-7, and AV-8B.

The fact that the USN doesn't have a long-legged air superiority fighter has nothing to do with the F-35, and the USAF never considered China as a concern when the ATF requirements were issued (that became the F-22).

angry_octetOP19d ago

So if you compare it to the previous generation turbine it's better? That isn't very interesting.

The F-35 achieved a goal that isn't needed, at the cost of extreme delay. An F-16 replacement with stealth would have been delivered faster and cheaper. The USMC could concentrate on drones, STOVL and vertical lift. A larger variant for F-15/F/A-18 replacement would have many advantages. The USN always wanted more range out of JSF, but wasn't allowed to buy it.