JSF F-35 VS F/A-18E

[Michaelc136]

Which one do you think is a better aircraft?

[Snoopy]

Based on what? The F-35 isn't even in full production yet and is still in testing officially.

[mvsgas]

Which one do you think is a better aircraft?

 

 

[cichlidfan]

Based on what? The F-35 isn't even in full production yet and is still in testing officially.

 

Really, Paul, details like that don't stop discussions around here!! :P

[Snoopy]

Really, Paul, details like that don't stop discussions around here!! :P

 

Very true :thumbup:

[Razor5-1]

In the Future the F-35 will be far superior, these days aircraft are made with the idea of maturing technology. Take the Typhoon for example, it's took years to implement LGB's. But it's the incorporation of new technologies like AESA and new weapons coming online that make the difference.

So the F-35 may not be a world beater initially, but it has the ability to improve with new tech and that's the big difference.

[Erforce]

If russians invents a EMP missile or something portable, you will say goodbye to all US aircrafts. There's far too much sensible electronics now imo.

[cichlidfan]

Very true :thumbup:

 

Yep.

[Michaelc136]

If russians invents a EMP missile or something portable, you will say goodbye to all US aircrafts. There's far too much sensible electronics now imo.

 

Wrong, thats where you are wrong, you really think america is that stupid to not have anything to prevent EMP? the cables are coated in a special material that prevents emp, if someting goes wrong the f35 has 3 back up stages.

[Jona33]

F/A-18E for the simple matter that it currently WORKS.

[Invader ZIM]

When you speak of American planes and EMP, also consider how most American platforms are. For Example, U.S. Navy ships are also hardened from EMP, the U.S. has all of it's weapons systems built with a nuclear war in mind.

 

I would expect nothing less of any other country that has military hardware that needs to work under the most demanding and worst case conditions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS-I

 

from link above.

 

 

ATLAS-I (Air Force Weapons Lab Transmission-Line Aircraft Simulator), better known as TRESTLE, or simply the Trestle, was the codename for a unique electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generation and testing apparatus built between 1972 and 1980 during the Cold War at Sandia National Laboratories near Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico.[1]

ATLAS-I was the largest NNEMP (Non-Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse) generator in the world, designed to test the radiation hardening of strategic aircraft systems against EMP pulses from nuclear warfare. Built at a cost of $60 million, it was composed of two parts: a powerful Marx generator capable of simulating the effects of a high-altitude nuclear explosion (HANE) of the type expected during a global nuclear war, and a giant wooden trestle built in a bowl-shaped arroyo, designed to elevate the test aircraft above ground interference and orient it below the pulse in a similar manner to what would be seen in mid-air.[2]

TRESTLE is the world's largest structure composed entirely of wood and glue laminate.[3]

 

The Marx generator providing the EMP pulse generated 200 gigawatts of electromagnetic flux at an electrical potential of 10 megavolts,[4] powerful enough to reliably reproduce (at short range) the deleterious effects of a thermonuclear detonation on electronic circuitry as created by such examples as the HARDTACK I, ARGUS and DOMINIC I (Operation Fishbowl) high altitude nuclear tests. The generator itself was mounted at the end of a long, diagonal wooden scaffold structure, located above and to one side of the aircraft platform, with the primary receiving tower located at equal elevation on the other side of the arroyo.

Due to their higher flight altitude and nuclear payload, Strategic Air Command bombers were the primary object of the tests, but fighters, transport aircraft and even missiles were also tested for EMP hardness on TRESTLE. In addition to electronics survivability tests, numerous sensors located beneath and to the sides of the aircraft would gather additional data on the airframe's EMP permeability to be used in design considerations for future Cold War aircraft.

The advances made in EMP generation technology by Sandia during the operation of TRESTLE greatly assisted in the construction of the much more powerful 40 megavolt, 50 terawatt (50,000 gigawatt) Z Machine at Sandia during the 1990s. Technological advances during the 2000s (decade) have since boosted this output to 290 terawatts (290,000 gigawatts), high enough to actually study nuclear fusion at the point of detonation.[5]

 

 

So in the year 2000 they upgraded the system to a power level that can allow study of nuclear fusion at the point of detonation.... And they tested cruise missiles and other aircraft. Well, I learned something new today. :D

[asparagin]

42

[WildBillKelsoe]

If russians invents a EMP missile or something portable, you will say goodbye to all US aircrafts. There's far too much sensible electronics now imo.

 

Wrong, thats where you are wrong, you really think america is that stupid to not have anything to prevent EMP? the cables are coated in a special material that prevents emp, if someting goes wrong the f35 has 3 back up stages.

 

Russians don't need to invent sh1t.. they have nuclear weapons. Why do you think Reagan dismantled the USSR? they were going head to head with US.

 

Back on topic, the simplest answer to your question, is MRFCS. You saw that in the A-10C. Why do you think other aircrafts won't have it?

 

>>>OP<<<

 

I think both are good. But if I take sides, I'll take the hornet over the JSF.

 

Not because JSF is still beta, but because the JSF is based on stealth, which needs alot of pre-work done to even ensure the systems won't be ineffective if actual combat flight is done. The F/A-18 is the best carrier based aircraft after the F-14 Tomcat. It even looks better than most aircrafts of multirole. the Dassault Mirage (Delta, Mig-21,ah....), the JAS Gripen? (a knock-off F-35...)... No one can mess with the hornet.

[joey45]

42

 

That is the best answer I have seen in this thread thus far.

[Pyroflash]

Neither is better than the other. They were designed for different purposes and will be serving side by side, so no real point in comparing them on a general level the same way you would compare the F-16C and the F-35A.