Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
As a technical point of logic, the author neglects to consider the potentiality of "unforseen" conflicts, but as a matter of policy military planning must be done in light of national resources and plausible potential threats. Italy has severely constrained resources due to the economic crises and essentially no threats. The existential threat of the Soviet Union is gone and the prospect of anything similar threat is extremely remote. None of Italy's neighbors in Europe seems remotely likely to pose a threat and the countries of N. Africa are in shambles. The operations against Serbia and Libya were both wars of choice; neither of these nations was any sort of threat to Italy. Perhaps the former conflict might have some consequences for the stability of surrounding European nations or economic repercussions, but probably not major consequences for Italy itself. As a matter of national prestige, Italy would likely want to provide at least token forces for major U.S. lead operations like the war against Libya, but it seems like the Typhoons would be more than adequate for this.
I'd be interested in further information regarding the question of design trade-offs and design features necessary for STOVL. I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I have a degree in nuke e. If someone asks for a reactor with a given power output and safety features one might be able to sketch out a simple design, but if one wants those same specifications on a reactor that must be flown in an aircraft or launched into space, the design process becomes much more difficult. Operation in those challenging environments and the constraints they place on the design dominate the design process. This is a more extreme example than STOVL, perhaps, but it serves to illustrate the reasoning behind people's concern. The Harrier is the only combat aircraft to successfully incorporate STOVL, and this was done at the cost of performance relative to something like an F-16. STOVL seems like, and has historically been, the kind of requirement that places severe constraints on the design process. Certain layouts that might be plausible and advantageous for a standard fighter might be rejected if they lacked sufficient room for the lift fan, for example. Perhaps modern materials, computer aided design, etc. have minimized this, no doubt they have mitigated it to some degree, but I think the basic question makes sense. It seems likely that an F-16 F-18 replacement could have been had with less cost and program risk if the STOVL requirement had been dropped. I'm not saying this is true, but I think this seems prima facie plausible. I'd be really interested in seeing what sort of aircraft would have arisen had the STOVL requirement been done away with.
Jul 31, 2013, 12:30:00 AM
Posted to The F-35 Issue: 'Food' for Thought?