I have long wondered why we didn’t take existing airframes, power plants, and avionics and update them. Think what an F-16 could do with a bit of stealth technology, canards, and vector thrust exhaust nozzles. What could the F-14 do with similar technology?
>>Think what an F-16 could do with a bit of stealth technology, canards, and vector thrust exhaust nozzles. What could the F-14 do with similar technology?<<
That was what led to the F-35. Had they stayed on that track, the F-35 could have unified and advanced MRFs. A homogeneous platform would save billions (maybe trillions over time) and countless man-hours since repairs and parts would be readily available at any NATO (or friendly) country.
To use stealth, canards, variable thrust, etc. is a redesign of the airframe which, if you were to look at what an F-16/18 would look like with those would be... TA DA! The F-35!
The F-35 has been on the drawing board for over a decade (IIRC). It took 27 months to go from a paper napkin to an operation craft called the SR-71.
I tend to not believe all that's written in a very biased media who speaks for an administration that is not interested in our strong defense.
The F-35 has barely gotten started after being born into a very hostile environment. Have people forgotten the bad press that comes with developing each new airplane? This is nothing new. The airplanes people love now got the same sort of reception as the F-35 is getting.
Personally, I find it intriguing, with all sorts of commonality built in from the start and what looks like a huge amount of space up front and elsewhere for whatever systems might be now or in the future.
If it's maintenance friendly and as easy to fly and performs as well as I've read, we'll be well served.
Get heavy and slow...
RAM isn’t light.
Errr, nothing. "Stealth" isn't a panel you bolt on to an aircraft (despite the fact that you can coat one with *classified* materials that will reduce its radar returns. You need to change the shape to the point where radar is reflected in a direction as close to normal to the source as possible. Once you change the shape too much, you now have other issues that require more changes. A completely new design is far more practical than sprinkling magic "stealth" dust over an F-16. Ditto that with vector thrusting, etc.
Part of the problem is the incestuous relationship between the aircraft manufacturers and the DoD. Cost overruns are simply assumed (and paid), and everyone gets "comfortable" on the money spread around. A complete change in procurement procedures would be necessary reform in order to fix this. But then the people who get rich off of this (and donate lots of cash to politicians) would get hurt, and we can't have that... now can we?
f14 with carbon fiber body would be ffffaaassssttt
Problem is, you can't 'paint stealth' onto an airframe. The airframe itself has to be stealthy. That's in the basic design of it.
Might stress the airframe too much.
Stealth is a family of technologies. Coatings can do some (SR-71 & F117). Shape is a bit better with fly-by-wire coupled controls. If you begin with a no -stealthy airframe there are very real limits to how much stealth you can achieve.