I have no doubt that you’re at a loss. They’re all the same. Good night.
I think I speak for everyone when I say, “huh”? Navy and USAF operational doctrine have generally preferred that air superiority fighters have two engines, but it’s not a hard and fast rule. In any event, the F-35 will certainly be a front-line fighter in Marine and Navy service.
The Navy is keeping the Super Hornet. They’re replacing the Hornet.
I don’t see any metrics that make the F-35 an air superiority fighter beyond it’s stealth technology. If RADAR technology catches up to it then it’s a very expensive plane that performs poorly.
Other than (limited) supercruise ability, thrust vectoring, helmet cueing and high off-boresight targeting/launch capability, you mean?
Also, are you posting from 1950? We don’t capitalize radar anymore. 
What good is limited supercruise? That’s another way of saying it’s poorly designed and won’t hold up. The thrust vectoring is not a performance item such as that used on the F-22 but is limited to the Marine STOVL version. The things a flying pig. It doesn’t do anything well and is going to get spanked by conventional jets.
Aren’t the last two functions able to be added to other airplanes, and aren’t unique to the features of the F-35 engine and airframe?
Incidentally, I don’t share your optimism about stealth being not being negated in a meaningful sense within the next fifty years. 50 years is a long time, and who knows what improvements in things like fully-networked multi-static radar systems, lidar, or improved passive IR, will see in that time? That said, those sorts of countermeasures are the bailiwick of technologically sophisticated societies like the U.S. And there are IADS now that will put the hurt on non-stealth aircraft like the SuperHornet, yet might not seriously interdict stealthy aircraft.
Which before I unwisely went off on the autonomous drone tangent earlier, were my main questions about the program: can the F-35 effectively operate in IADS environments where aircraft like the Super Hornet cannot, and how prevalent are those types of environments likely to be in the future? Or are non-degraded modern IADS such that no manned aircraft, stealthy or not, is likely to be able to operate, and we should increase efforts towards a smarter drone/additional longer-range brilliant one shot weapons?
Helmet cueing, yes. HOBC, not really. You’d have to replace virtually all the avionics to do it, and I suspect there are some inherent limitations built into existing airframes like sensor placement that prevent it anyway.
Sure, stealth might be negated sooner than that, but it’s unlikely. Look at it this way: who has all the stealth aircraft? The US. Can we defeat it? No. Can countries which don’t have any test aircraft expect to do so? Doubt it.
The only plausible countermeasure that currently exists is switching radar bands. The reason aircraft radars don’t already operate in the X-band is that it drastically limits range and returns lots and lots of false positives. Computers can improve the latter but not really do much about the former, because it’s a physics problem. Russian jets have always been equipped with IRST as a secondary measure and that doesn’t seem to work either, since reducing exhaust signatures is party of stealth anyway.
The same good as any supercruise. For just about every aircraft except the F-22 and Typhoon ability to supercruise is limited by payload. You’re right about the thrust vectoring, though. I was under the impression it could do more than deflect downward.
Saying it’s “going to get spanked” is ridiculous, though. It’s possible - though not likely - that it could be beaten by a conventional jet in a dogfight, but conventional jets will be helpless against it beyond visual range.
Once stealth is lost in close combat then the F-35 is not particularly maneuverable and is quite slow.
It’s as maneuverable as any legacy fighter and has far better avionics.
If by spanked, you mean destroyed, you’ve got to the heart of the issue. Stealth is reduced radar visibility, it’s not Bilbo with the ring invisible.
How do you figure it’s better than a Typhoon or an F-22 or even an F-18/E. I don’t think there is even a point of mentioning the Sukhoi PAK FA stealth fighter which is capable of sustained super cuise and 3 axis thrust vectoring.
Since I’ve already mentioned it twice in this thread, you should feel free to do so.
The F-35 is not better than an F-22 as an air superiority fighter, which is why I specifically said “legacy fighters”. It was never going to be better than the F-22, because it is designed to operate from a carrier. Navalized fighters will never be as good as ground-based fighters because they are necessarily heavier and less manouverable due to the demands of carrier landings. As far as the Typhoon and F-18, neither has an AESA radar, which is a complete game-changer (the F/A-18 is being retrofit with them). The Typhoon is also barely more proven than the F-35 and isn’t stealthy. You can’t handwave that away.
I might also add that the PAK-FA is a stealth aircraft, too. Maybe you should start a thread about how stupid the Russians are for building it.
What? Since when did a tailhook make a plane less of anything? The F-14 was a pretty good aircraft and the F-4 was both an Air Force and Navy plane.
The PAK-FA is a mach-2 aircraft with 3 axis thrust vectoring. I think that’s the whole point of the thread.
The F-14 was a pretty good aircraft in a straight line. It never saw much combat. The F-4 had all sorts of problems when it was introduced, and that was 50 years ago. It’s not just a tailhook. The undercarriage has to be significantly stronger to absorb deck landings. The navalized Dassault Rafale weighs 500 kilos more than the Armee de l’Air version.
The PAK-FA is a Mach 2 aircraft with three axis thrust vectoring that doesn’t actually exist yet.
you just got done saying they couldn’t make carrier planes on the same order of Air Force planes. You’re statement was flat false.
It’s in the flying test mode. It exists as much as the F-35 exists. What’s your point? Do you need a video of itflat spinning to understand it’s maneuverability?
BTW, Lockheed wanted to build a Navy version of the F-22 but was turned down.
If you’re going to quote my posts, respond to them, rather than the imaginary person you seem to be arguing with. Here’s what I said:
What is “flat false” about that, Chucky?
No, I don’t need you to tell me about an aircraft I introduced you to three pages ago, but thanks. The PAK-FA/T-50 is at the prototype stage. The engines that will power production versions do not exist. The avionics are still literally on the drawing board.
That looks pretty cool, can he change direction doing that?
Your assertion is disengenuous, at least in the case of the F-4. That was a Navy fleet defense fighter from the first line drawn on the blueprints. The Air Force adopted it after the fact because it was a damn good fighter in spite of the performance handicaps of navalization… mostly overcome with more thrust and good combat electronics.
Probably the best missile sled of its generation.
Yes, they can literally slide around a point with vectored thrust. The video shows the plane put into and then pulled out of a flat spin. There are videos of earlier aircraft with the same system along with articulated canards and they could do stuff that is aerodynamically not possible.