Neithewr Boeing or Airbus are going to offer offsets against the purchase or manufacturing work on civilian aircraft as an insentive to buy military aircraft that has already been ruled as illegal by the WTO .
realize this is a discussion board and therefore, obviously, topics are up for debate and as such, different views may be proffered. However, I have been reading the posts on this board for the past several weeks with a great deal of interest regarding the views expressed herein and few posts have struck me as completely off the mark as the one quoted above. Firstly, the claim that the F-35 (JSF) possesses "very little" in the way of stealth is an outlandish claim without any sort of evidence to back it up. Indeed, while it has been argued the F-35 will not achieve the same degree of all-angle stealth as the F-22, not even the F-35's most vehement detractors claim it is in possession of "very little" stealth. While the stealth properties of the F-22 and F-35 are distinguishable by a matter of degree, the qualitative difference between the F-35's stealth capabilities and those of the Typhoon is separated by several orders of magnitude. Secondly, Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The assertion made above, that "nations" are "well on their way" to making stealth "useless" is an extraordinary claim for which evidence is neither offered by the writer nor proven by another known, reliable source, let alone sources. All else is conjecture until proven otherwise.
Therefore, on the merits of its advantage conferred by stealth alone, in air combat the F-35 will see an enemy, and shoot that enemy, much earlier than will the Typhoon, even after the latter is given an updated AESA radar later in the century. In a hypothetical and unlikely head-to-head match-up, all else being equal (support elements, pilot skill, etc.), the Typhoon will be terminated more than likely before its pilot is even aware he or she is under attack. It is important to note that at this stage of its development, when the USAF is trying to secure funding for additional F-22s, the F-35's air-to-air capabilities, which are not significantly lesser than its larger cousin's, are being purposely down-played so as not to alert Congress that the F-35 will be significantly cheaper, but not significantly less capable, than the F-22. Indeed, it is very much like the F-15 vs. F-16 debate the USAF was engaged in during the 1970s and 80s. As has been widely acknowledged, the F-15 is not an inherently superior air-superiority fighter vis-a-vis the F-16. Had the USAF optimized the F-16 from early on for the air-superiority role, the USAF would have never needed to buy the F-15, period. See Pierre Sprey and John Boyd. An F-35, optimized for the air-to-air role, would not be inferior to the F-22. However, even when its air-to-air performance is compromised by its need to be a bomb truck, when the F-35 enters service it will be second only to the F-22 in the air-dominance mission. The evidence of this are all the countries--which must use the F-35 in both air-to-ground and air dominance roles--that are opting to wait several years for the arrival of the F-35 instead of procuring the Typhoon, despite the makers of the latter practically paying other nations to purchase their already obsolete design. Indeed, the capability gap between the F-35 and the Typhoon at all levels in favor of the former is greater yet than that between a late-model F-16 and an early-model Mig-23 (again, of course, in favor of the former).
Sadly for the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and whoever else has made the disastrous mistake to purchase this relic of a by-gone era, the Typhoon will soon be almost, but not quite, as irrelevant as the so-called Super Hornet. The F-35 will exceed the Typhoon at all levels, including maneuverability. Despite the latter's canards, I am astounded by how very little people on this board understand the very peculiar yet very unbeatable aerodynamic configuration common to both the F-22 and F-35. The enormous control surfaces, set far behind the axis of gravity in both as well as far behind the engine, provide a degree of maneuverability unmatched by any comers. Again, the USAF is being coy about the F-35 in this regard, but this aircraft will not be beaten by any aircraft now flying except for the F-22. Were the F-35 to be fitted with thrust-vectoring, however, it would be more maneuverable yet than the F-22.
realize this is a discussion board and therefore, obviously, topics are up for debate and as such, different views may be proffered. However, I have been reading the posts on this board for the past several weeks with a great deal of interest regarding the views expressed herein and few posts have struck me as completely off the mark as the one quoted above. Firstly, the claim that the F-35 (JSF) possesses "very little" in the way of stealth is an outlandish claim without any sort of evidence to back it up. Indeed, while it has been argued the F-35 will not achieve the same degree of all-angle stealth as the F-22, not even the F-35's most vehement detractors claim it is in possession of "very little" stealth. While the stealth properties of the F-22 and F-35 are distinguishable by a matter of degree, the qualitative difference between the F-35's stealth capabilities and those of the Typhoon is separated by several orders of magnitude. Secondly, Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The assertion made above, that "nations" are "well on their way" to making stealth "useless" is an extraordinary claim for which evidence is neither offered by the writer nor proven by another known, reliable source, let alone sources. All else is conjecture until proven otherwise.
Therefore, on the merits of its advantage conferred by stealth alone, in air combat the F-35 will see an enemy, and shoot that enemy, much earlier than will the Typhoon, even after the latter is given an updated AESA radar later in the century. In a hypothetical and unlikely head-to-head match-up, all else being equal (support elements, pilot skill, etc.), the Typhoon will be terminated more than likely before its pilot is even aware he or she is under attack. It is important to note that at this stage of its development, when the USAF is trying to secure funding for additional F-22s, the F-35's air-to-air capabilities, which are not significantly lesser than its larger cousin's, are being purposely down-played so as not to alert Congress that the F-35 will be significantly cheaper, but not significantly less capable, than the F-22. Indeed, it is very much like the F-15 vs. F-16 debate the USAF was engaged in during the 1970s and 80s. As has been widely acknowledged, the F-15 is not an inherently superior air-superiority fighter vis-a-vis the F-16. Had the USAF optimized the F-16 from early on for the air-superiority role, the USAF would have never needed to buy the F-15, period. See Pierre Sprey and John Boyd. An F-35, optimized for the air-to-air role, would not be inferior to the F-22. However, even when its air-to-air performance is compromised by its need to be a bomb truck, when the F-35 enters service it will be second only to the F-22 in the air-dominance mission. The evidence of this are all the countries--which must use the F-35 in both air-to-ground and air dominance roles--that are opting to wait several years for the arrival of the F-35 instead of procuring the Typhoon, despite the makers of the latter practically paying other nations to purchase their already obsolete design. Indeed, the capability gap between the F-35 and the Typhoon at all levels in favor of the former is greater yet than that between a late-model F-16 and an early-model Mig-23 (again, of course, in favor of the former).
Sadly for the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and whoever else has made the disastrous mistake to purchase this relic of a by-gone era, the Typhoon will soon be almost, but not quite, as irrelevant as the so-called Super Hornet. The F-35 will exceed the Typhoon at all levels, including maneuverability. Despite the latter's canards, I am astounded by how very little people on this board understand the very peculiar yet very unbeatable aerodynamic configuration common to both the F-22 and F-35. The enormous control surfaces, set far behind the axis of gravity in both as well as far behind the engine, provide a degree of maneuverability unmatched by any comers. Again, the USAF is being coy about the F-35 in this regard, but this aircraft will not be beaten by any aircraft now flying except for the F-22. Were the F-35 to be fitted with thrust-vectoring, however, it would be more maneuverable yet than the F-22.
