Forum: Program and politics

jayraptor wrote:

Hi Neurotech,
The F-20 is designed to replace F-5E as cheap affordable fighter that would compete with BAe Hawk, Alphajet, AMX, etc in light fighter category. It is meant for poorer customers that could not afford proper fighter like F-16. It was cancelled because someone with authority thought it's a waste of time coming up with cheap sub-standard fighter especially made in the US. Some less reliable sources even said the EU competitors objected the F-20 as it could hamper their sales.

The GD YF-16 & Northrop YF-17 and F-20 were all designed as cheap affordable fighters. Initial F-16 Block 1/5/10 jets were designed as light BVR fighters, and compared to the F-4/F-14/F-15 they were. The other jets you mention are basically Lead-In Fighter Trainers, they didn't have anything beyond basic "gun" radar. They could be pressed into combat by a 3rd rate AF, but they were trainer jets.

What killed the F-20 were 4 factors, basically;
- Carter administration rules were 'waviered' for many of the smaller countries to buy the F-16/J79 and subsequently standard F-16s that would otherwise buy the F-20.
- The F-20 had 2 high profile crashes during demonstration/practice flights.
- The F-20 flyaway cost wasn't substantially cheaper than a F-16 Block 1/5/10 which had better avionics, and greater production volume.
- The USG didn't want to sell F-20s because it could push down F-16 production numbers and increase the F-16 unit cost.

F-16.net Sponsor

archeman wrote:

Quote:

.

Quote:

jayraptor

However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers.

What buyer would choose a conventional F-35 over a stealthy F-35?

Your not thinking far enough out of the box wrightwing. You have to get waaaayyyy out of the box to get there. Perhaps you could just buy F-35s, run down to the hardware store and return with some Led based paint. A few hours and some used paint rollers later presto -- conventional F-35s!!!

How much would it cost to modify the F-35 into an A-35 for CAS/COIN, bolting on armor, and replacing the F-135, with a tilt rotor set up? You could use the internal bays for more fuel, as you wouldn't need to worry about the RCS, and maybe stretch, widen, and increase the height, so you could carry troops/supplies. Or do you think that the A-32 would be superior in this role? Shocked

Was that far enough outside the box? Razz

Quote:

However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers.

What buyer would choose a conventional F-35 over a stealthy F-35?

The same countries who bought the F-16/79, duh.

EDIT: looks like I need to refresh the page before writing a comment...

wrightwing wrote:

archeman wrote:

Quote:

.

Quote:

jayraptor

However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers.

What buyer would choose a conventional F-35 over a stealthy F-35?

Your not thinking far enough out of the box wrightwing. You have to get waaaayyyy out of the box to get there. Perhaps you could just buy F-35s, run down to the hardware store and return with some Led based paint. A few hours and some used paint rollers later presto -- conventional F-35s!!!

How much would it cost to modify the F-35 into an A-35 for CAS/COIN, bolting on armor, and replacing the F-135, with a tilt rotor set up? You could use the internal bays for more fuel, as you wouldn't need to worry about the RCS, and maybe stretch, widen, and increase the height, so you could carry troops/supplies. Or do you think that the A-32 would be superior in this role? Shocked

Was that far enough outside the box? Razz

he he he
You got there --- and beyond!!!

I'd be all for an up-armored CAS F-35 with additional internal fuel, in the form of a design study to see if there'd be a point in owning 200 or so.

southernphantom wrote:

I'd be all for an up-armored CAS F-35 with additional internal fuel, in the form of a design study to see if there'd be a point in owning 200 or so.

Not worth it IMO. A-10s proved vulnerable to SAMs 2 decades ago and the lethality of defenses,has got even better since then.

southernphantom wrote:

I'd be all for an up-armored CAS F-35 with additional internal fuel, in the form of a design study to see if there'd be a point in owning 200 or so.

You are probably better off modifying a V-22 for CAS.

At the risk of being redundant the whole point of the F-35 is to fly at high altitude and out of the range of the air defence systems and to use its EOTS (electro-optical targeting system) to engage ground targets. (See video) The idea of flying CAS low and slow with aircraft like the A-10 is a bit out dated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPc8UlkqYr8&feature=plcp

alloycowboy wrote:

At the risk of being redundant the whole point of the F-35 is to fly at high altitude and out of the range of the air defence systems and to use its EOTS (electro-optical targeting system) to engage ground targets. (See video) The idea of flying CAS low and slow with aircraft like the A-10 is a bit out dated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPc8UlkqYr8&feature=plcp

"Best defense, not be there."

South Korean pilots visit Boeing, Lockheed jet fighter plants By Andrea Shalal-Esa 27 Sep 2012

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid ... J320120927

"WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - South Korean test pilots are visiting Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 plant in Fort Worth, Texas, this week after a similar trip this month to Boeing Co's F-15 plant in St. Louis amid signs that Seoul will delay a decision in its $7 billion-plus fighter competition until early 2013.

Lockheed spokesman Mike Rein said South Korean officials were evaluating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter proposal submitted by Lockheed in South Korea's 8.3 trillion won competition for 60 new fighter planes. He gave no further details.

Seoul had expressed disappointment that its pilots would not be allowed to fly the F-35 fighter, which has only one seat. Lockheed officials said the plane was still in development, and Japanese pilots had not been allowed to fly it either during their competition last year.

Instead, South Korean pilots were being given access to a sophisticated F-35 simulator and rides in chase planes as Lockheed test pilots showed off the capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II, according to two sources familiar with the plans, who asked not to be named....

...South Korean pilots are moving ahead with their evaluation of the competing warplanes, but industry executives and aerospace analysts have said they do not expect Seoul to pick a winner until after the country's presidential election in December. A contract award was initially expected in October....

...John Pike, an analyst with globalsecurity.org, said it made sense for Seoul to wait until after the election to announce its decision, instead of taking a chance that the contract award could be reversed by a new government.

He said he expected Seoul to pick the more advanced Lockheed fighter, noting that last year Japan chose Lockheed to build a fleet of 42 F-35 planes and that China has developed its own stealth fighter.

"At the end of the day, the Japanese did not want to be a generation behind. They did not want to be the last major military power without a stealthy aircraft, and I think the Koreans are going to go the same way," Pike said...."

MORE about the alsorans at the jump.

Seoul faces tough choice in fighter procurement Lockheed Martin hints at less than $125m price tag for Korea, confident of F-35’s delivery time

http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130327000898

Have not heard from Korea for a bit so go read it if interested.

This may all be decided by the D. As. north of the parallel. Apparently our state dept. will "let" him have more stroke than LM, go figure?

Another one for the money...

NavWeek: Keeping Asian Waters Pacific 29 Mar 2013 Michael Fabey

Quote:

"...Examples of highly capable aircraft now being acquired by the Navy, CRS also notes, include F-35C carrier-based Joint Strike Fighters, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, E-2D Hawkeye early warning and command and control aircraft, the Navy carrier-based Unmanned Combat Air System (N-UCAS program) demonstrator program, and the follow-on Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system.

But the secret to prevention in the region may reside not in what the U.S. does deploy, but what others think may or may not be deployed.

“Countering China’s naval modernization effort can also involve stating publicly (while withholding classified details) the U.S. Navy’s ability to counter improved Chinese maritime forces,” CRS says. “Such public statements could help prevent Chinese overconfidence that might lead to incidents, while also reassuring regional allies, partners, and neutrals.”...

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 4b043e9a1f

South Korea's F-35 and F-15 Silent Eagle DSCA requests are up.

F-35

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/ ... _13-10.pdf

$10.8b for the entire F-35 package.

F-15

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/ ... _13-11.pdf

$2.48b just to turn an F-15E/K/SG variant into a "Silent Eagle".

That's $40m per aircraft over and above the cost of the standard new-build Strike Eagles.

I think I hear "Slowman" crying over his beer...

Pardon my ignorance, but I seem to be a bit confused. Is Boeing simply proposing modifying the ROKAF's existing F-15Ks to Silent Eagle standard? The quoted 2.48 Billion seems low for 60 F-15SE new builds, but maybe I'm missing the point here...

HV

Forum: Program and politics

Korea threatens to disqualify F-35