Originally Posted by KenV
Because when things get to the "last resort in an all out conflict" the point is to COMPLETE THE MISSION, not "live to fight another day". If the mission is really important and intercept is likely, you provide an escort that is optimized for air to air so the strike guys can get in and do their job while the fighter guys get in a fur ball with the defenders.
So basically the whole JSF concept is wrong if not supported with F22's and/or Typhoons as it in itself is no Air Dominance fighter, we're basically buying an A iso an F35.
Or you have such fiduction in Stealth + sensor fusion that you don't need the AD fighter support in which case the F35 concept is wrong again as it could just as well have been a stealthified GULFSTREAM with an even better intenal weaponsload, lower IR profile, quieter, more economical and carrying an even more elaborate sensor package.
Both of these option where not what was originally sold to both the US and its partners.
Originally Posted by KenV
It is NOT possible to be a superlative strike aircraft AND a superlative air superiority fighter. If it were possible, we'd have F/A-22s. And they are a bigger fantasy than a close-in dog fighting F-35.
There are those that say that the RAFALE and lately also the TYPHOON are exactly that, both sublime attackers and fighters with sensor fusion and advanced latest gen weapons (METEOR,BRIMSTONE,....).
The F16 became exactly that for us in the 90's after the MLU program.
It certainly wasn't the contractors. They were eminently happy to sell one airframe to the Navy for dog fighting, another for strike, another to USAF for dog fighting, another for USAF strike, another to the Marines, another for jamming, another for photo recon, etc etc. When McNamara demanded USAF and USN share a common airframe (F-111) he was laughed into derision, but that mattered not. He required it. And we know how that turned out.
When the Hornet came out there was supposed to be a separate F-18 and A-18. The Navy combined them into a single airframe and the die was cast. If one airframe can be do both missions for the Navy, why can't one airframe do both missions for USAF? And the F-15E was born. But wait. If USAF and USN can have one airframe that does both, why can't they share a common airframe? And let's throw STOVL for the Marines into the mix while we're at it. And JSF was born. JSF was as much government driven as was TFX (which led to the F-111) in the 1960s. The contractors were dragged into by the government.
Sure Politicians ultimately (rightfully) take the decision and if you feed them ridiculous info and let them get away with it they make dumb decisions , Les Aspin and the JSF and as you said Mc Namara before are a case in point.
But they get their ideas from somewhere and someone (LM in case of the JSF) certainly put them on track for said stupidity, enough blame to go around.
The Military seem to be the biggest real opposers (Gen McPeak in case of JSF) but have the smallest voice it seems.(sorry to say).
Originally Posted by KenV
And if you really think the contractors like the idea of "one winner take all", you might want to reconsider where you obtain that stuff you've been smoking.
They might not like it before but LM sure likes their position now.