I would like to pose a question. Normally, ac manufacturers will take new technology, or learned ideas, and apply it to the next generation of ac. In the case of either one of the JSF contenders taking the place of the F-16, I've noticed they have not taken full advantage of what the fighter community knows.
#1: In the F-16, they always spout off about the 30 degree reclined seat forcing blood back from the legs to the abdomen, making 9Gs both easier to take and make the pilot less likely to suffer from G-loc. The JSF went back to the old 15 degree recline.
#2: The F-16 has the one-piece bubble canopy; said that by eliminating the frames the pilot can spot aversaries easier. The F-16's canpoy is also very small and low, making the pilot have the best visiblity possible, which is very importand in ACM. The JSF went back to the old hinged frame canopy with restricted view.
#3:Thrust vectoring. This idea couldn't get more publicity if it wanted to; both the F-22 and SU-37 are considered to be superfighters on the near horizon. But with the Lockheed JSF, no vectored thrust! Why? Do they want an X-35 pilot to get shot down by an SU-37?
#4:They don't plan on much hanging from the wings, especially the X-32. Then how will it be able to be a better bomber than the F-16 or A-10 if it can haul 1/10th as much ordanance? Also, any external bags would knock out the stealthyness right away.
There are more, but my guess is that both companies were presses for time and had a limited budget, becuse they certianly didn't take advantage of current goodies.

This seems like a step backwards from the extremely well adapted F-16. Let me know what you think. Opinions welcome.

The requirement is for a strike fighter, not an all-around light fighter like the F-16, so they aren't placing much weight on the air to air aspects of the plane. Apparently they're sticking to the belief that the stealth will protect them, and when it won't, big brother F-22 will be around to save the day.

You have to take into account the projected theaters for these planes. Nobody is expecting a cold-war era confrontation anymore. The assessment predicts an increase in smaller-scale regional conflicts (like the balkans), in which air to ground constitutes the great bulk of sorties, and SAMs and AA the biggest threat to friendly aircraft. Hence the heavy emphasis on stealth capabilities. Also, the payloads themselves are changing to largely laser-guided precision munitions, with larger targets being knocked out by cruise missiles, B2s, and 117s.

The niche requirement seems to be a daytime/all weather strike airplane designed to replace the A-10, F-18, and F-16 (in their attack roles). Better survivability, along with the perks that accompany such a family commonality and low costs. The JSF program claims a payload of 17000lbs, with both internal and external stores, which is roughly equivalent to the F-16. I imagine that in many cases, all of the stores for a sortie might fit internally.

Also, Boeing's X-32 has 2d vectored thrust, but I'm not sure as to the X-35. Again, even if a JSF ends up in an AA engagement, it will probably take place BVR making thrust vectoring largely irrelevant. As for the canopies, the pilot can't see directly behind the seat anyway, and otherwise the cockpits appear to provide a pretty unrestricted view.

So, to conclude this mostly incoherent post, I'd have to disagree with you. With it's advanced avionics and systems (F-16 pilots complain about outdated systems, even with all the pod augmentations), stealth capabilities, possible supercruise, and commonality between the service branches, coupled with supposed low unit and ownership costs, I'd say it's a step in the right direction. These days, pulling g's and turning on a dime does not win engagements. Data systems, stealth, and advanced weapons do. Whether or not the JSF models will actually live up to this remains to be seen. Personally I am more enthusiastic about the Eurofighter concept than JSF, but then they don't have to worry too much about carrier landings and VTOL.

Sure, many conflicts may be smaller more spread out, but the airframe itself IS a step backward. The canopy is more arcaic, the Lockheed version doesn't have vectored thrust (an engagement may be BVR, but if it isn't, it's lacking). When they add the external stores, you loose the stealth capability that the JSf will be using as it's crutch. It is going in the direction you described, in a technological standpoint, but the airframe is lacking. It doesn't have the 30 degree recline that's so well touted by the F-16 community. It certianly doesn't have supercruise, and that F119 is severly restricting it's range.

I remember reading that the Lockheed engineers are excited because even though supercruise isn't a requirement, the X-35 may still be able to do it. Not really a big deal, but nice.

The JSF will use external stores only on missions without a stealth requirement, obviously. It's a compromise, smaller payload and stealth, larger payload and no stealth. I think it makes perfect sense, being able to use the same aircraft both for stealth and non-stealth missions, simply attaching external pylons and stores for the non-stealth sorties.

From what I've heard, both prototypes handle extremely well, with pilots saying they are the best planes they've had the opportunity to fly. So I don't fully understand why you say the airframe is a step backwards? The STOVL variants of both fighters have full thrust vectoring. I imagine that the X-35 doesn't in it's AF variant to save cost and weight. As for the 30 degree seat thing from the F-16, I never was convinced of that seat pitch being such a big deal. Besides, nobody really expects JSF pilots to be pulling 9 g's on a regular basis. Modern operations just don't call for it, even in combat.

If the JSF wasn't a step in the right direction, I don't think the Air Force and other services would be as interested as they are, as they've stated on more than one occasion that it must provide significant improvements over the F-16 for they to consider it.

Oh, and I forgot, the new cockpits (blending into the fuselage in the rear) are actually more aerodynamically-friendly than the full bubble canopies, and I'm told they provide more stealth characteristics as well.

I was going to ask an F-16 pilot if and when his guard unit would recieve the JSF, but he told me that within the fighter community, they don't see either of the current contenders making it. He said there would have to be some major fixes,or a new desgin would be required. It's similar the the V-22 scandal. The DOD gets soo excited about a new concept, that they commit themselves, and when something doesn't work ouit, they just brush it under the rug. Boeing had to completely re-design the X-32 just months before the prototype was to be assembled. For some time they had the X-32 using regluar stabs. and wings. They had to make radical design changes immeditely. I think the point the F-16 pilot was making was; ever since WWII they have been saying the dogfight is over, everythiing will be BVR, but this is not true. When the F-4 first came out, they said there would be no dogfighting, just BVR, so they didn't install a gun. It got it's A$$ whooped over Vietnam untill they finnally installed a gun. The JSF seems to be the next incarnation of the F-4 problem. They don't equip it with some things that would make it a better dogfighter in hopes it will never need it. And it may not, unless there is a large scale conflict with someone like China. But the dogfight is the reason fighter pilots still go out and trian day after day, unfortunaley it will still be around, and this is where the JSF is lacking. It's a technological marvel, but it's the next gun-less F-4, so-to-speak. And this is where it's lacking.

The cockpits follow the same rule as the rest of the airframe. It may improve stealth capability as long as nothings hanging from the wings, but is back in the days of the F-4 in visiblility, making it more difficult to dogfight.

I don't dissagree with what you're saying, as far as the mission the designer envision, and the apptmet at stealth, but they are hiding worse fighter under a stealth skin. In the case of the F-117, that was ok, becuse it was only going to be making precision AG strikes at night. It isn't high performance, and it doesn't need to be. But the JSF is supposed to take over the king of ACM F-16.

Well, I disagree with you. With AWACS and the new advanced radars and data sharing, we won't be seeing much dogfighting anymore. BVR and emphasis on survivability of the airplane after the missile exchange seems to be the way things are heading, and all the major companies are designing their airplanes with this method of combat in mind.

I don't think the F-16 is the best dogfighter. Not that it matters, since the F-15 is the AF's AA fighter, with the F-16 mostly relegated to ground attack (although they get their good amount of kills). That said, I love the F-16 and feel that it's the most versatile fighter around.

My argument rests upon the fact that the JSF is being developed around what the DOD percieves to be the prevalent threat in the coming years, small scale regional conflicts, with SAMs and aging soviet equipment constituting the bulk of the threat to allied aircraft. The JSF specification aims to minimize the SAM threat (which was a real problem in the recent Balkans upleasantness) and to some degree the AA threat as well, with the extensive use of stealth technology. And to that extent, I can understand and respect their de-emphasizing of the AA role, especially dogfighting.

I wouldn't call it a step backward, or a step forward for that matter. It's just a step in a different direction, what the DOD percieves the right direction.

I might be coming off as a strong proponent of the JSF, but in truth, I'm not. The whole thing revolves around the undetectibility of stealth aircraft, and the savings that go along with commonality between all the service branches. I believe that the shape stealth thing will be cracked soon enough, rendering it useless. Until then, if the JSF program proceeds, it should do well enough what it was concieved and created for - stealth strike fighter convertible to regular strike fighter with the loss of stealth. DoD wants all its eggs in one basket, and they just might end up regretting it.

Well, right, they are designing it in a way that technology should protect it. But it just seems wierd. Ever since WWI, they have tried to make fighters better dogfighters, culminating in the thrust vectoring F-22. But the JSF will network with the F-22 and AWACS to keep itself alive. I just feel as if it sure would be a pilot comfort over hostile territories to have a real good dogfighter. As the late great Jeff Ethell said, in a world where two stealth aircraft can't see each other on radar, they will have to close into visual range to get an I.D. When you close into visual range, what do you have? A dogfight.

I guess the anticipation is that USAF planes will keep running into Mig 21s / Mig 29s / Su 27s.

If the S-37 has actual stealth characteristics, and a confrontation occurs between it and next-generation US fighters, things will get very interesting. Personally I hope it happens, I'm saddened to see air combat degenerate into BVR missile exchanges.

I'm not really much of a military aviation enthusiast, but a few weeks ago I attended an engineering student competition hosted by Lockheed-Martin, which included a tour of some of their Palmdale facilities and seeing the JSF (X-35B, to be precise). Too bad this post isn't a few weeks sooner, or I'd have asked these questions exactly, but anyways, a few things the Lockheed engineers told us: (not really up on the Boeing proposal, so this basically deals with Lockheed's airplane)

-one very important thing to keep in mind is that the X-35 is a demonstrator/development airplane, and a lot of things will be changed on the final airplane. In order to speed up the program and to reduce the development problems with the demonstrators, a lot of off-the-shelf parts are used that will be replaced by purpose-built parts on the final production version (after those systems are fully developed, but off-the-shelf saves that work for the purpose of demonstration). For example, a heat exchanger was taken from an F-18, but the production aircraft will have a purpose-built system mounted in a totally different part of the airplane. Likewise, landing gear is borrowed from other aircraft, but will be different for the production aircraft. One other system specifically stated as to be changed for production is the canopy.
-as to the canopy, I don't remember exactly what they said they planned for production, but one problem with using the bubble-canopy is that it's too strong, and they needed to use a type of material that would be able to have the pilot eject through it (not sure, maybe it was due to STOVL requirements that the specification given didn't have enough time to jettison the canopy). That said, the canopy was specifically said to be different on production airplanes.
-as for weapons, they wanted a stealthy airplane, and thus internal stores will be used as much as possible, but external weapons can be put on if required, although at the loss of it's stealthyness
-I don't know about the seat angle. It may be different on the final versions, or it may have something to do with the STOVL requirements.
-another thing Lockheed engineers stressed to us was that this aircraft is designed for a different role than the F22, for example. It's not quite as stealthy, as complex, or as capable as the F22 in many respects, but the X-35 is a very flexible, very capable aircraft, designed to be lighter, more adaptable, and a fraction of the cost of the F22. Essentially every design is a compromise in some respects, and because of the different role that the JSF is intended to fill, it's a little different of a compromise than other aircraft.

Anyways, I think the JSF looks like a great airplane, it will be very interesting to see how it will change as it is further developed.

Interesting points that you bring up, AC183.

Like I have said, JSF has many things going for it, and I certainly intend to at least see the production model before making a final judgement.

The cockpit thing, among others, is an example of just how many compromises must be made in order for the same plane to work for all of the service branches in so many roles. My concern is mainly whether too many compromises are being made, thereby reducing the overall effectiveness of the airplane.

The payload reduction is especially interesting. From what I understand, both models have two internal weapons bays? That doesn't allow room for many weapons. I don't see how the plane is supposed to defend itself in an AA role when it is carrying two laser guided bombs, although there must be some part designed to accomodate AA missiles while still retaining stealth...it is difficult for me to imagine the Air Force accepting a replacement for the venerable F-16 which does not allow for a full simultaneous AA and AG role.

And we have been discussing just the JSF v. F-16 ideas. Desmidus, I'm thinking the same thing you are about too many comprimises for filling too many roles. It may be one thing to cut back on soem AA goodies to go for the stealth direction, but this aircraft will be replacing a number of aircraft, each purpose built for their roles.Another point would be the JSF v. A-10. Let me see if I can play devil's advocate.The A-10 has twin engines set far apart for battle damage, twin tails set far apart for battle damage, the titanium bathtub, 12 hardpoints, huge dive-brakes, and that wonderfull 30mm Avenger. These things the JFS will be lacking. In the low level arena, this may put the pilot in danger. The JSF may just want to make a small surgical strike and leave the threat area under the cloak of stealth. But an interesting point is that we lost an F-177 during operation Allied Force to a Russian built SAM. Nobody in the pentagon spoke up and said, "Hey? Why did he get shot down? I thought that was the whole point behind stealth?"
So, going with the fact that the JSF may gey hit with a SAM, or at leat small arms fire, the pilot is going to be wanting the above A-10 bells and whistles.

Sorry, I made a type-o. That's F-117.

Aerotech, I agree completely. Again, compromising has, in essence, theoretically removed the A-10 from the future battlefield.

I remember an A-10 pilot who said, regarding the near retirement of the A-10, that it was an irreplacable airplane with second to none ground attack capabilities, and that faster, lighter planes like the F-16 (and JSF) will never come close to its effectiveness against mobile ground targets. If it ever comes to US involvement in a large scale ground war, and the JSF is the main attack/close support fighter available, US forces will suffer heavy setbacks.

Nothing but an improved A-10 can replace the A-10. Apache helicopters are fine, but do not measure up. The JSF is a completely different airplane, with completely different capabilities. Taking it low and slow for close support plays away from all of its advantages, making it extremely vulnerable.

On a somewhat different note, I could envision a scenario where A-10s are transfered under Army control, like Apaches, in which role they would serve exceptionally.

If the plan is for BVR engagements then i am willing to be that there will be enough ACM time placed on these frames by the end of their life due to engagements with Hostile Birds that if i get 1 dollar for each hour i will be very very rich.. The fact is that if this is the planes biggest weakness then that's what you are going to head for.

I'm am yet to see a clear picture or nice neat ROE in minor conflicts. If the pilot has to ID the Boggie visually then i guess BVR engagement just went south. This is almost a ALL BALL's and no Forehead job if they think it won't get into a furball... Or maybee they are starting to get a little to cocky..i know the JSF and the F22 willl be an awsome combo. But when the game gets played the oposition doesn't always line up fat dumb and happy.

Right. The A-10 and F-16 may be more likely to get into a tangle with no stealth characteristics, but at least when the going gets rough, the F-16 will be able dogfight extremely well in a close range engagement (which is the Russian mentality by the way; build them to do nothing but godfight), and the A-10 is the next B-17, able to come home as some cables and tubes.

The American mentality is to end the "problem" far away with BVR missiles and long range Radar. But at least the F-15/16/18 have dogfighting muscle to back them up. The Russian mentality, as I said, is drop some flares and jink to defeat the BVR missile, and close into a dogfight. Right now, it's a pretty level playing field.
In the future, we see the Russians going with multi-directional thrust vectoring, and head mounted displays-linked to thrust vectoring missiles. This shows they still believe in the dogfight. All their enginerring technology is headed in that direction. America is channeling it into long range radar and stealth technology.The JSF is going to hide behind stealth and AWACS so it hopefully will never get into a dogfight. But heaven help it if it does. That's where my original point comes in. Wouldn't it be nice to have some muscle to back yourself up like the F-16 has? Can you put pilots lives on the line for a cost-simplicity comprimise?

Guys, don't forget that every airplane is a compromise. Or perhaps it would better be called a tradeoff, or balancing between many factors, including manoevreability, speed, altitude, stealth, armaments, durability, flexibility, serviceability, etc. The F16 has it's own compromises made to give it certain qualities, while lacking others.

I'm inclined to take a wait-and-see approach before judging whether the JSF will realize those fears as to "compromising too much." I think I share the concerns as to it being 'a jack of all trades' but don't forget that while the basic airframe is the same, and many parts will be the same, the different A/B/C versions are really very different airplanes adapted to different tasks. Lockheed can do this by changing wings/gear/armaments/etc while building the airplane off a common platform, so we'll have to see what the final product will be.

With regard to armaments, I don't remember exactly what they said the JSF will carry internally, but from the impression I got, it's going to be pretty decent, in comparison to the F16.

As a ground attack-aircraft the JSF won't come anywhere near the A-10. I guess the question becomes whether that role is going to be declining, as cruise missiles and guided munitions see more use?

I'm rather optimistic overall on the JSF. It's a different military environment nowadays than years ago, and the need for aircraft is changing. I think the JSF is going to be effective in addressing the military's needs for this type of aircraft.

Perhaps the reason why the JSF is able to "replace" the A-10 to some degree is the new Joint Standoff Weapon.

I am assuming that the JS weapon system will be a tatical type for engaging targets of oportunity. Now given the LOW intensitty conflict type scenarios dropping million dollar bombs on small targets wiich i am assuming are going to be spotted by the likes of J stars. This is overkill the J stars is for a high end conflict and would need the extensive back up as well, not only do you need to protect the AWAC's but it. Now if your'e going after small targets, which are not of extremely high value that are fleeting you will have to get down low and ROOT THEM OUT so to speak. No nice stand off weapons here. TLAM's as mentioned above can do the job it's just that the target will most likely be gone by the time they arrive. Fixed is good Cruise missles don't fix everything. I seem to remember recently in the gulf that planes got downed doing low level because no body has found a cost effecient way to strategically bomb using high value platforms at a tactical level in a low intensity conflict and actually have it work ( flash back Vietnam ).... Armour it, make it carry lots, have loiter time and all weather capability and good ACM stats. ( Buy a super hornet )

The Joint Standoff Weapon is supposedly able to glide in from 40nm away from the target area, and deliver 145 BLU-97/B bomblets, each capable of targetting and taking out an armored vehicle.

Other versions of the weapon are designed for taking out larger fortified targets, and other targets.

It certainly gives the JSF more credibility as a close support, armor killing aircraft, but only if it works as designed.

I still think that in a situation where allied and opposing forces are engaged in close combat, the A-10 is irreplacable in the role of a close support aircraft.