Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF
is
jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other
low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking
about.

Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to
mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far
smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy
them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using
for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is
hard to argue with them.

I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their
assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL
rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute.

Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political
generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger
numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will
have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch
of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar
on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from
bellow and still be useful on its original role?

Build some new A-10s with state of the art avionics and new engines. I know
that's not going to happen, but indeed it would make perfect fighting sense.
I still look in wonder at the costly "stealth" features incorporated into
the Rhino, and then you load the poor thing over with a bunch of
hanging-ons, canted outwards, that make it look like a Xmas tree on any
half-decent scope...
_____________
José Herculano

José Herculano wrote:
Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to
mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far
smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy
them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using
for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is
hard to argue with them.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asi...237523,00.html
'I Love Japan, I Love Peace. The Maritime Self-Defence Force,' says a
voice-over at the end.

They just need a class of Lending Humanitarian Assistance ships
operating Justice Support Friendship aircraft.

-HJC

"José Herculano" wrote:

snip

I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their
assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL
rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute.

Why? The F-35s have considerably better range than their F-18A/Cs, and
apparently equal or better range than the F-18E/Fs.

Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political
generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger
numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will
have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch
of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar
on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from
bellow and still be useful on its original role?

snip

As was mentioned in the Comanche decision briefing, when doing CAS (at least
recently), RCS has been irrelevant. IR, visual and aural signatures are far
more important, along with sensors and weapons. The F-35 has all of those, PLUS
radar stealth for those first night of the war missions. And for BAI, INT, OCA,
DCA, etc.

Guy