[Black Wolf]

Perhaps you should have chosen the F-22... despite its rumored control difficulties... and cost.

I believe that they looked into just exactly that, but that the F-22 was never made available for export.

[esarai]

The control difficulties were a defect in the F-22's oxygen system.  It wasn't calibrated properly or something and it gave pilots hypoxia, so for a while it was restricted to low-altitude flights.  Some have also reported developing respiratory problems, and so there's suspicion that noxious fumes have been leaking into the air supply.  The USAF did look into it, but has concluded that pollutants in the air supply is not the problem.  I'm not sure if they've resolved the issues, but all altitude limits on F-22 flights have been removed.

[Phantom Hoover]

Also, russian plane designs look unbelievably cool.

you say this and yet this pak-fa thing looks pretty much identical to that f-22 thing

[Dysko]

Literally every time (I am making this up but I'm pretty sure it's true) the military has set out to make a system that Will Do Everything it has turned into a preposterously expensive and underperforming cluster****.

Ironically, one of the most widespread and successful "Will Do Everything" fighter in service today, the F-16, was originally designed as a very cheap fighter with limited capabilities...

[lostllama]

Also, russian plane designs look unbelievably cool.

you say this and yet this pak-fa thing looks pretty much identical to that f-22 thing

I don't know why exactly, but generally I find myself admiring the looks of 4^th and 5^th-generation Russian jets more than the Western ones. It's probably due to the more rounded (maybe slightly "organic?") shapes they have (compare the F-15 to the MiG-29 and Su-27, the LERX-like leading edges on the latter two in particular). However, I like the shape of the F-14, for the same reasons. It's true that there's a lot of resemblance between the PAK FA and F-22, but I find myself preferring the former slightly more.

I'm not very knowledgeable about such things, but rounded surfaces aren't as stealth-inducing as faceted ones, because they're more likely to reflect incident radar energy back to the radar receiver. Future fighter designs with stealthy airframes are likely going to be more faceted as a result (fly-by-wire enables such designs to be made flyable). A "compromise" design, in this sense, would be the Silent Eagle upgrade for the F-15E (which incidentally has also been offered for export).

[StarSlayer]

Canada should bring back the Arvo Arrow.     

[lostllama]

That, and maybe the TSR-2. That looked seriously ahead of its time back in the '60s.

Speaking of aircraft that seemed to have great potential but were cancelled for one reason or another....I was reading up on the development of the Harrier a few months ago, and learned that following the Kestrel demonstrator, Hawker Siddeley planned to make a supersonic version originally named the P.1154 - this was actually eventually going to be given the name "Harrier". However, due to the incoming Labour government in 1965 (and a few other reasons) it was cancelled, and the RAF proceeded with development of the subsonic P.1127, which ended up becoming the Harrier we know of today.

[Phantom Hoover]

Also, russian plane designs look unbelievably cool.

you say this and yet this pak-fa thing looks pretty much identical to that f-22 thing

I'm not very knowledgeable about such things, but rounded surfaces aren't as stealth-inducing as faceted ones, because they're more likely to reflect incident radar energy back to the radar receiver.

Uh, my understanding of it is that the faceted designs were because working out radar scattering on curved surfaces was beyond the abilities of early computers. Certainly I don't think the B-2 or the SR-71 were less stealthy than a faceted design.

[Scotty]

That, and maybe the TSR-2. That looked seriously ahead of its time back in the '60s.

Speaking of aircraft that seemed to have great potential but were cancelled for one reason or another....I was reading up on the development of the Harrier a few months ago, and learned that following the Kestrel demonstrator, Hawker Siddeley planned to make a supersonic version originally named the P.1154 - this was actually eventually going to be given the name "Harrier". However, due to the incoming Labour government in 1965 (and a few other reasons) it was cancelled, and the RAF proceeded with development of the subsonic P.1127, which ended up becoming the Harrier we know of today.

I'm fairly certain Harriers are fully capable of supersonic flight.  Regardless of what the "official" maximum speed is.

[Trivial Psychic]

Uh, my understanding of it is that the faceted designs were because working out radar scattering on curved surfaces was beyond the abilities of early computers. Certainly I don't think the B-2 or the SR-71 were less stealthy than a faceted design.

To be accurate, despite its appearance, the SR-71 isn't operationally stealthy, because the massive exhaust plumes behind the engines actually give off a greater radar return than the airframe, nullifying any potential stealth advantages.  Besides, going that high and that fast they were never in any real danger.

[Phantom Hoover]

welp, that's what i get for relying on skimming wikipedia

[NGTM-1R]

Uh, my understanding of it is that the faceted designs were because working out radar scattering on curved surfaces was beyond the abilities of early computers. Certainly I don't think the B-2 or the SR-71 were less stealthy than a faceted design.

External geometry is not internal geometry. The B-2 is faceted on most of its internal structures to reduce their return, which is the real reason you end up with faceted shapes anyways.

[Nuke]

Also, russian plane designs look unbelievably cool.

you say this and yet this pak-fa thing looks pretty much identical to that f-22 thing

im gonna have to agree with the e here. russians have some badass designs, they have a few blatant ripoffs too, but when they design something from scratch it really looks badass.

[Grizzly]

Also, russian plane designs look unbelievably cool.

you say this and yet this pak-fa thing looks pretty much identical to that f-22 thing

im gonna have to agree with the e here. russians have some badass designs, they have a few blatant ripoffs too, but when they design something from scratch it really looks badass.

To elaborate: Here's the SU-47 Berkut.

[Nuke]

Also, russian plane designs look unbelievably cool.

you say this and yet this pak-fa thing looks pretty much identical to that f-22 thing

im gonna have to agree with the e here. russians have some badass designs, they have a few blatant ripoffs too, but when they design something from scratch it really looks badass.

To elaborate: Here's the SU-47 Berkut.

pure jet porn

[Davros]

And heres the X-29 - and only 13 years earlier than the su-47 (i used to fly this in janes atf)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29

and the daddy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287

[Nuke]

yea, but its not painted black.

[lostllama]

Also, russian plane designs look unbelievably cool.

you say this and yet this pak-fa thing looks pretty much identical to that f-22 thing

im gonna have to agree with the e here. russians have some badass designs, they have a few blatant ripoffs too, but when they design something from scratch it really looks badass.

Like the Aeroprogress T-752 Shtyk, or the Rutan-esque T-720? The former was only a concept but it looks incredible.

That, and maybe the TSR-2. That looked seriously ahead of its time back in the '60s.

Speaking of aircraft that seemed to have great potential but were cancelled for one reason or another....I was reading up on the development of the Harrier a few months ago, and learned that following the Kestrel demonstrator, Hawker Siddeley planned to make a supersonic version originally named the P.1154 - this was actually eventually going to be given the name "Harrier". However, due to the incoming Labour government in 1965 (and a few other reasons) it was cancelled, and the RAF proceeded with development of the subsonic P.1127, which ended up becoming the Harrier we know of today.

I'm fairly certain Harriers are fully capable of supersonic flight.  Regardless of what the "official" maximum speed is.

I'm not too clued up on the subject but there are something like 40 odd variants in the Harrier family. I've read that the early FRS.1 Sea Harrier is faster than the more modern FA2, and I think that's the case when compared with the AV-8B branch of models too. Under certain circumstances I think any Harrier variant can approach transonic flight conditions, but such circumstances would probably entail a clean (or near-clean) configuration and possibly a diving attitude. I'm not sure if Mach 1 could be reached in level flight with a clean config.

I wonder what a Mach 2-capable Harrier would have been like, both from a pilot's perspective and in terms of combat role. It would have probably seemed like the ultimate in combat aircraft versatility for its time.

[The E]

Well, except for the minor thing where "A supersonic Harrier" is much like the STOVL variant of the F35

There's a lot of complexity involved in making a fighter that can do STOVL magic AND go supersonic AND fill the combat role the Harrier was built for.

[lostllama]

That's correct, but AFAIK the original P.1154 project wasn't part of a trinity of closely-related designs like the F-35 project is. I've read that one of the reasons that the project has dragged on and cost more than originally estimated is that changes in one design have resulted in knock-on changes to the other two. I'm not sure if this is a direct result of the specification which requires 80% parts commonality between all three variants (which was going to be a factor in keeping costs down). Meeting all the STOVL, supersonic and armament specs in a single package is a huge, complex job, but as the P.1154 was a singular project I wonder how it would've turned out. Then again, the history of the Yak-141 is perhaps a sign of where it likely could've ended up (the design of the Yak-141 is what the F-35 is to some extent based on).