Favorite Fighter/Bomber

[RAF_OldBuzzard]

In FS2004:

Hawker SeaFurys by David Hanvey/Paul Berry/Jerry Beckwith. Great visuals, and awesome FM.

FSD T-38 not 'really' a fighter, but it was the base for the F-5.

[Papa9571]

Not to mention the F-20 Tigershark

[fighter25]

Bomber the B-1 man what sinister looking plane.

[C]

Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. 8-)

Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there...

[Woodlouse2002]

Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. 8-)

Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there...

I don't think the F35 is capable of STOVL yet is it?  :o

[Papa9571]

Yes it is. Its designation is F-35B.

The "A" model is for the Air Force and the "C" model is for the Navy

[C]

Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. 8-)

Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there...

I don't think the F35 is capable of STOVL yet is it?  :o

It will be, but it isn't yet. The X-35 has been...

[Woodlouse2002]

Also, arn't it's claims to be short take off a little dubious considering the RN needs new aircraft carriers with catapults for it to have any chance getting off the deck with operational payloads?

[fighter25]

Fighter the F-35 JSF good old American STOVL. 8-)

Good old American STOVL eh? Quite a lot of foreign design and development in there...

Ture very true. The F-35 good old International STOVL.

[C]

Also, arn't it's claims to be short take off a little dubious considering the RN needs new aircraft carriers with catapults for it to have any chance getting off the deck with operational payloads?

I've heard with a full payload the RN will either need a floating runway or to bolt the two new carriers together...

...and still use a catapult...

Nope, I'm sure once they've sorted the weight problems out (why on earth did they not follow the Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

[Woodlouse2002]

(why on earth did they not follow the Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

Why go for a completely new aircraft when it would take very little to push the Harrier through the soundbarrier, which together with a slight avionics facelift would put the Harrier at least on par with the JSF.

The JSF's ability to hover indefinately is probably the most useless thing anyone has ever attached to a fighter plane.

[C]

(why on earth did they not follow thhttp://www.simviation.com/yabbfiles/T ... t/wink.gif
Winke Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

Why go for a completely new aircraft when it would take very little to push the Harrier through the soundbarrier, which together with a slight avionics facelift would put the Harrier at least on par with the JSF.

P.1154?

The JSF's ability to hover indefinately is probably the most useless thing anyone has ever attached to a fighter plane.

What do they want, a supersonic Apache replacement?

[Woodlouse2002]

(why on earth did they not follow thhttp://www.simviation.com/yabbfiles/T ... t/wink.gif
Winke Harriers 45 year old principle and use one engine, rather than one with a huge great big nozzle and another just for vertical thrust?)...

Why go for a completely new aircraft when it would take very little to push the Harrier through the soundbarrier, which together with a slight avionics facelift would put the Harrier at least on par with the JSF.

P.1154?

Exactly. 8-)

But as I said, maybe with updated avionics.

Course, doing that would turn the Harrier into a real Harrier. Instead of a rebranded Kestrel.

[Chris_F]

I'm not sure how many VTOL F-35s are scheduled to be built.  I'd expect most will be traditional runway or carrier variants.  The US doesn't have a ton of need for VTOL and it's the biggest buyer of the plane.  Besides, that VTOL fan takes up a lot of space and looks awfully heavy.  My guess is it's intended to "check the box" and produce a design that, in theory, could do VTOL but in practice it just makes more sense to leave it off.

What advantage does an F-35 have over a Harrier?  The same advantage it has over the F-16 and F-18 it's slated to replace (or at least supplant).

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]
What advantage does an F-35 have over a Harrier?