What should the USAF buy?

[F-15 Eagle]

As of now the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has given the USAF enough money to keep the F-22 line going until the next president takes office allowing him/her to make the final decision on the future of the F-22 line.

On one side they say the F-22 is needed to replace the aging F-15 fleet and to deal with emerging threats. On the other side they say the F-35 which is cheaper and can be built in larger numbers can provide sufficient air superiority capability to replace the F-15s.

[DarthAmerica]

I say for now, the current planned numbers of both platforms are sufficient. Any additional funds should be directed elsewhere IMHO. Areas where the USAF are definitely not deficient is in the air superiority and tactical strike roles.


-DA

[F-15 Eagle]

I say for now, the current planned numbers of both platforms are sufficient. Any additional funds should be directed elsewhere IMHO. Areas where the USAF are definitely not deficient is in the air superiority and tactical strike roles.


-DA

So 183 F-22s and 1763 F-35s sounds good? I still don't have an opinion. I know the F-35 will be really good but the F-22 is in production so i don't know what to vote for. 381 F-22s sounds really good but it could cut into the F-35 and thats what I'm worried about.

[Sea Toby]

I would rather have an Air Force of less than 200 Raptors and over 1700 Lightnings than 400 Raptors and 900 Lightnings, figuring the Raptor costs twice as much as a Lightning. Simply put, in my opinion, the Raptor isn't twice as better than a Lightning in the air to air role, and no where as good in the air to ground role.

As long as the GAO continues to support the Lightning program, and not the Raptor program, I shall insist on Lightnings. In other words I would rather have an Air Force of less tha 1900 fighters than 1300 fighters. We get much more bang for the buck with the Lightnings, plus 600 more fighters.

Notice the Pentagon and the present administration agrees with my opinion. Also notice that the secretary of the Air Force and its commanding general have been fired recently for disagreeing with the Pentagon and this administration.

[F-15 Eagle]

I would rather have an Air Force of less than 200 Raptors and over 1700 Lightnings than 400 Raptors and 900 Lightnings, figuring the Raptor costs twice as much as a Lightning. Simply put, in my opinion, the Raptor isn't twice as better than a Lightning in the air to air role, and no where as good in the air to ground role.

As long as the GAO continues to support the Lightning program, and not the Raptor program, I shall insist on Lightnings. In other words I would rather have an Air Force of less tha 1900 fighters than 1300 fighters. We get much more bang for the buck with the Lightnings, plus 600 more fighters.

Notice the Pentagon and the present administration agrees with my opinion. Also notice that the secretary of the Air Force and its commanding general have been fired recently for disagreeing with the Pentagon and this administration.

You make a very good point. More bang for you buck is true all right especially when there are 1763 F-35s with 14 AAMs each. Now thats unrealistic by sending all the F-35s and load them up with a full load but it does show how you do get more bang for your buck. I do think they should buy some brand new F-15s and F-16s as a stop-gap replacement between the retirement of current fighters and the new F-35 so that way there is no capability gap.

Also the Air force firings was mainly because of the B-52 that flew 6 nukes across the U.S. Thats the main reason why they were fired.

[cobzz]

381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. It's stupid cutting orders to get something else, when the USAF is saying they need both. :)

[F-15 Eagle]

381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. It's stupid cutting orders to get something else, when the USAF is saying they need both. :)

Thats what I would go for but the problem there is not enough funding to go around when the U.S. is fighting 2 wars at once, it really strains the defense budget. If it were peace time then maybe but thats not the case. So now 183 F-22s and 1763 F-35s is still better than 381 F-22s and only 900 F-35s. I think the F-35 might be better than the F-22 in ATA someday.

[Sea Toby]

381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. It's stupid cutting orders to get something else, when the USAF is saying they need both. :)

The budget is tight, especially during the last year when fuel operational costs have doubled, and may double again. I guess we could fund 200 more Raptors out of your income, but I doubt whether you have enough funds in the bank to cover one Raptor. But I suspect Bill Gates could.

[DarthAmerica]

The budget is tight, especially during the last year when fuel operational costs have doubled, and may double again. I guess we could fund 200 more Raptors out of your income, but I doubt whether you have enough funds in the bank to cover one Raptor. But I suspect Bill Gates could.

The procurement cost aren't really the issue. Its the operations and support cost through the life of the program. An emphasis of the F-22 and manned fighters in general could put the airforce behind in other critical areas that are proving to be more neglected than manned fighters. People are generally aware that competing with the USAF in traditional symmetric air battles is the path to failure. Thats why they are directing their resources into WMDs and ant-access strategies that prevent the USAF from bringing to bear its fighters and then trying to operate inside the USAF decision cycle. In other words, the USAF becomes aware of a threat, is not deployed or cannot deploy in time with forces necessary to stop it so the target escapes.

-DA

[DarthAmerica]

Thats what I would go for but the problem there is not enough funding to go around when the U.S. is fighting 2 wars at once, it really strains the defense budget. If it were peace time then maybe but thats not the case. So now 183 F-22s and 1763 F-35s is still better than 381 F-22s and only 900 F-35s. I think the F-35 might be better than the F-22 in ATA someday.

F-35 better at ATA? Perhaps if you mean the principle of mass. ie the fighter you have is better than the one you don't. But I doubt in terms of capabilities. The F-22 is too fast, flies too high, can see much further and is said to be harder to detect.

-DA

[F-15 Eagle]

F-35 better at ATA? Perhaps if you mean the principle of mass. ie the fighter you have is better than the one you don't. But I doubt in terms of capabilities. The F-22 is too fast, flies too high, can see much further and is said to be harder to detect.

-DA

Right now the F-35 is already the second best fighter out there and only the F-22 is better. BUT 10 years from now the F-35 could get some major upgrades and it could be better than the F-22. Just like todays F-16 is better than the first F-16 20 years ago. Also the top speed of the F-35 and F-22 is not that much different and they both can fly at 50,000ft or more and they both have stealth.

[DarthAmerica]

Right now the F-35 is already the second best fighter out there and only the F-22 is better. BUT 10 years from now the F-35 could get some major upgrades and it could be better than the F-22. Just like todays F-16 is better than the first F-16 20 years ago. Also the top speed of the F-35 and F-22 is not that much different and they both can fly at 50,000ft or more and they both have stealth.

You don't know the top speeds of either fighter to say that and top speed is not what I'm referring to. The F-22 is the USAF answer to the ATA role and its development path and emphasis will focus on that. The F-35 is optimized for the strike fighter role and will emphasize that. The F-22 will fly faster and higher longer than the F-35 will and benefit from a kinematic point of view. The F-22 also has a lower signature by at least an order of magnitude as well according to USAF statements. That doesn't mean the F-35 will be a bad ATA fighter, in fact it will probably be 2nd only to the F-22 and nations are buying it for that purpose. But F-22 it is not.


-DA

[Tasman]

381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. It's stupid cutting orders to get something else, when the USAF is saying they need both. :)

Good in theory but it ignores the reality of the present budget problems. Leaving it to politicians to make these decisions seems fraught with peril. I would like to see congress allocate the money and then let the air force decide about how much to allocate to each of the two types.

For selfish reasons (as a foreigner) I would like to see as much money as possible go into the F-35 but that's only because it would keep down the cost of my own country's Lightnings. ;) If I was an American, however, I would be keen to see as many F-22s as possible squeezed into the budget, whilst maintaining the total number of fighters necessary for America to meet its commitments.

Getting the balance right is essential. The air force knows how many fighters it needs overall and too much spent on the F-22 will mean a shortage of numbers. Perhaps F-15 Eagle's suggestion of more new F-15s or F-16s as a stop gap to keep up the numbers is worth considering.

Tas

[DarthAmerica]

Getting the balance right is essential. The air force knows how many fighters it needs overall and too much spent on the F-22 will mean a shortage of numbers. Perhaps F-15 Eagle's suggestion of more new F-15s or F-16s as a stop gap to keep up the numbers is worth considering.

Tas

Recent events globally suggest the USAF does not know how many fighters it needs. There is a disconnect between what the USAF thinks it's mission is and what it's civilian leaders think. Ultimately the USAF is subordinate to civilians who decide policy. There are many who would tell you the prior USAF leadership was too focused on F-22s when Cyberforces, Spaceforces, Strategic Forces, ISR assets and Logistics forces were being neglected.

Also, look at the wars that the USAF has been fighting in over the last decade. Trends have moved away from nation vs nation conventional combat. Now I fully acknowledge that there are differences in the immediate outcomes of consequences between war with terrorist or insurgents vs a war with a nation state and we cannot ignore nations who would threaten our interest. But the forces the USAF has and will receive are more prepared to deal with those kinds of threats should they manifest themselves. It isn't prepared to deal with the less predictable unconventional threats however.


-DA

[F-15 Eagle]

You don't know the top speeds of either fighter to say that and top speed is not what I'm referring to. The F-22 is the USAF answer to the ATA role and its development path and emphasis will focus on that. The F-35 is optimized for the strike fighter role and will emphasize that. The F-22 will fly faster and higher longer than the F-35 will and benefit from a kinematic point of view. The F-22 also has a lower signature by at least an order of magnitude as well according to USAF statements. That doesn't mean the F-35 will be a bad ATA fighter, in fact it will probably be 2nd only to the F-22 and nations are buying it for that purpose. But F-22 it is not.


-DA

The top speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.8=1200mph which is only 120 mph short of Mach 2. The top speed of the F-22 is Mach 2 which is 1320 mph. On internal fuel the F-35s top range is 1200nmi giving it a combat radius of +600nmi. Don't know what the range is for the F-22, but I know the F-35 has more internal fuel than the F-15.

Also the F-35 will focus just as much on air superiority missions as it does of strike missions. Why else would they give it the capability to carry 14 AAMs on the F-35 and why else would they not fund more than 183 F-22s to keep the F-35 going? Why would they make 2 of the F-35s 6 core missions air superiority missions if it is mainly a strike aircraft? And why else would the Pentagon have the F-35 replace the F-15s and not the F-22. The F-35 will be a multi-role fighter meaning it does both air superiority and ground attack missions. Thats why its called MULTI-ROLE it does both and does not focus mainly on just one mission.

[F-15 Eagle]

Recent events globally suggest the USAF does not know how many fighters it needs. There is a disconnect between what the USAF thinks it's mission is and what it's civilian leaders think. Ultimately the USAF is subordinate to civilians who decide policy. There are many who would tell you the prior USAF leadership was too focused on F-22s when Cyberforces, Spaceforces, Strategic Forces, ISR assets and Logistics forces were being neglected.

Also, look at the wars that the USAF has been fighting in over the last decade. Trends have moved away from nation vs nation conventional combat. Now I fully acknowledge that there are differences in the immediate outcomes of consequences between war with terrorist or insurgents vs a war with a nation state and we cannot ignore nations who would threaten our interest. But the forces the USAF has and will receive are more prepared to deal with those kinds of threats should they manifest themselves. It isn't prepared to deal with the less predictable unconventional threats however.


-DA

The USAF will always still need to maintain a strong and powerful fleet of high-tech fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 because there are still threats from Russia and China as well as smaller nation states that are getting more deadly fighters and SAM weapon systems. Remember its the current administration that said this and they will continue the support the F-35 as the GAO and Congress do. The current fleet of UAVs will never replace fighters and they still call in F-15Es, A-10s, F-16s and F-18s as well as heavy B-52H and B-1B bombers for air strikes everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as AC-130 gunships.

[DarthAmerica]

The top speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.8=1200mph which is only 120 mph short of Mach 2. The top speed of the F-22 is Mach 2 which is 1320 mph. On internal fuel the F-35s top range is 1200nmi giving it a combat radius of +600nmi. Don't know what the range is for the F-22, but I know the F-35 has more internal fuel than the F-15.

Also the F-35 will focus just as much on air superiority missions as it does of strike missions. Why else would they give it the capability to carry 14 AAMs on the F-35 and why else would they not fund more than 183 F-22s to keep the F-35 going? Why would they make 2 of the F-35s 6 core missions air superiority missions if it is mainly a strike aircraft? And why else would the Pentagon have the F-35 replace the F-15s and not the F-22. The F-35 will be a multi-role fighter meaning it does both air superiority and ground attack missions. Thats why its called MULTI-ROLE it does both and does not focus mainly on just one mission.

Combat radius isn't half of R_Max...lol. What will the F-35 do it it has to maneuver or use the after burner? Your numbers are wrong, your analysis is wrong. Judging by this you don't seem to understand the PHYSICal differences engineered into the F-22 that make it completely unique. Take my word for it. The F-22 is built the way it is for a reason. As good as the F-35 is it will not be a better air to air platform than an F-22 nor is it intended to be.

-DA

[DarthAmerica]

The USAF will always still need to maintain a strong and powerful fleet of high-tech fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 because there are still threats from Russia and China as well as smaller nation states that are getting more deadly fighters and SAM weapon systems. Remember its the current administration that said this and they will continue the support the F-35 as the GAO and Congress do. The current fleet of UAVs will never replace fighters and they still call in F-15Es, A-10s, F-16s and F-18s as well as heavy B-52H and B-1B bombers for air strikes everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as AC-130 gunships.

Where have I said UAVs will replace fighters? Please don't put words in my mouth. UAVs have completely different roles(for now) and characteristics. A fighter can't loiter for a day at a time collecting SAR images or hunting TELs. A UAV does not have the cognitive reasoning capability of a manned fighter. They do different things. The key is deciding which thing is more in demand.

Im not going to get into the irrelevancies of which platform this or that nation flies. No nation or likely combination of nations flies an airforce capable of defeating the USAF at the systems level if the USAF is led properly. There are nations that can circumvent that system regardless of what fighter is on the ramp by avoiding direct confrontations and striking at weak points in the system. There is more to war than air superiority and strike sorties.

In the near future, some of these wars could be fought and over with in the time it takes for an F-22/35 to taxi, takeoff and refuel even if they are in theater. Trust me that this is a serious concern. You may become aware of it sooner than you think if the right decisions aren't made.


-DA

[Sea Toby]

The top speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.8=1200mph which is only 120 mph short of Mach 2. The top speed of the F-22 is Mach 2 which is 1320 mph. On internal fuel the F-35s top range is 1200nmi giving it a combat radius of +600nmi. Don't know what the range is for the F-22, but I know the F-35 has more internal fuel than the F-15.

Also the F-35 will focus just as much on air superiority missions as it does of strike missions. Why else would they give it the capability to carry 14 AAMs on the F-35 and why else would they not fund more than 183 F-22s to keep the F-35 going? Why would they make 2 of the F-35s 6 core missions air superiority missions if it is mainly a strike aircraft? And why else would the Pentagon have the F-35 replace the F-15s and not the F-22. The F-35 will be a multi-role fighter meaning it does both air superiority and ground attack missions. Thats why its called MULTI-ROLE it does both and does not focus mainly on just one mission.

I don't think the USAF or Lockheed have pushed the petal to the metal yet as far as top speed is concerned for the production model F-35s. These are the minimum top numbers required of the F-35, we will probably never know what the real top speed is. For example, the US navy says its Nimitz class aircraft carriers have a top speed of 30+ knots. I have heard from sailors the ship can go over 34 knots, and they aren't sure whether the Captain asked for flank speed. Don't treat these numbers as real fact.

[irtusk]

The F-22 will fly faster and higher longer than the F-35 will and benefit from a kinematic point of view.

the F-22 will fly faster and higher, but it won't fly longer

the F-35A has a longer range than the F-22

The F-22 also has a lower signature by at least an order of magnitude as well according to USAF statements.

don't believe that's true

[DarthAmerica]

I don't think the USAF or Lockheed have push the petal to the metal yet as far as top speed is concerned for the F-35. These are top numbers required of the F-35, we will probably never know what the real top speed is. For example, the US navy says its Nimitz class aircraft carriers have a top speed of 30+ knots. I have heard from sailors the ship can go over 34 knots, and they aren't sure whether the Captain asked for flank speed.

Before the Connie retired I was on her while underway and there was a difference between what my GPS said and the USN fact file.

-DA

[DarthAmerica]

the F-22 will fly faster and higher, but it won't fly longer

the F-35A has a longer range than the F-22



don't believe that's true

So, you don't have to. Not many people understand this. BTW, I wasn't referring to R_Max. The F-35 is not designed to sustain the altitudes and speeds that the F-22 will. Again, there are engineering reasons for this that cannot be willed away.

-DA

[irtusk]

So, you don't have to. Not many people understand this.

it's not a matter of 'understanding', it's a matter of public USAF statements (according to you)

The F-35 is not designed to sustain the altitudes and speeds that the F-22 will. Again, there are engineering reasons for this that cannot be willed away.

where 'engineering reasons' = 'more thrusties' (or 'greater thrust to weight ratio' if you prefer)

yes i agree the F-22 has greater performance (speed, altitude)

but the F-35 has greater efficiency (which translates to greater range in this case)

we don't seem to be really disagreeing on this point as far as i can tell, you just have a strange way of saying it ;)

[rjmaz1]

Regarding the poll I think getting the F-35 online is the priority.



irtusk and Darthamerica you are both right.

The F-35 has a similar range to the F-22. Both aircraft flying at high subsonic speeds will reach a very similar distance.

If you start flying supersonic the F-35's range drops much quicker than the F-22's as the low bypass turbofans of the F-22 gives it high exhaust velocity and thrust that the F-35 requires afterburners to match..

If you start flying low subsonic speeds trying to loiter over the battlefield providing close air support the F-35 will stay up for longer. Its higher bypass turbofan gives it lower specific fuel consumption and it requires less thrust, as at any give thrust level the F-35 will be moving more air.

Speed: F-22 wins
Range: F-35 and F-22 are equal
Endurance: F-35 wins

The procurement cost aren't really the issue. Its the operations and support cost through the life of the program. An emphasis of the F-22 and manned fighters in general could put the airforce behind in other critical areas that are proving to be more neglected than manned fighters.
I agree.

The problem is most unmanned aircraft lack the eyes and ears for complete situational awareness. So the pilot on the ground is flying the thing looking down a straw. Until the unmanned aircraft get 360degree optical/IR sensors, AESA and enough processing power the situation wont improve.

Its a good thing that the F-35 is likely to have an unmanned version. We should be putting our eggs in its basket so it suceeds due to the future possibilities of the F-35.

[f-22fan12]

I firmly believe the USAF should by 381 F-22s. The F-22 is just a better aircraft than the F-35 in the roles of SEAD and Air Superiority. The F-35 will be given to many allies and could possibly be the subject of leaked tech. The F-22 won't have that problem and because of that, I'm SURE it is filled with more advanced systems than the F-35.

[f-22fan12]

Combat radius isn't half of R_Max...lol. What will the F-35 do it it has to maneuver or use the after burner? Your numbers are wrong, your analysis is wrong. Judging by this you don't seem to understand the PHYSICal differences engineered into the F-22 that make it completely unique. Take my word for it. The F-22 is built the way it is for a reason. As good as the F-35 is it will not be a better air to air platform than an F-22 nor is it intended to be.

-DA

I couldn't agree more. Well said. There is no aircraft better suited to penetrate and advanced IADS or shoot down enemy planes than the F-22.

[irtusk]

The F-22 is just a better aircraft than the F-35 in the roles of SEAD

1. since when did the F-22 operate off carriers?

if you can't get to the fight, you aren't even in the game . . .

2. even land-based, it's not as clear cut as you might believe

the F-22 is faster and possibly slightly stealthier, but:

a) the F-35 can carry more and bigger bombs
b) the avionics and situational awareness of the F-35 is superior

this last point is far more critical than most people realize

I'm SURE it is filled with more advanced systems than the F-35.

maybe in the mechanical systems, but i wouldn't be so sure about the avionics

the F-35 avionics are an improvement/evolution of what's in the F-22 and according to all indications, it is superior in this regards

[irtusk]

The F-35 has a similar range to the F-22. Both aircraft flying at high subsonic speeds will reach a very similar distance.

i can't prove it, but i really believe the F-35 is going to have a decent range advantage over the F-22

the fuel loads are very similar, and it's even possible that the F-35C (20k lbs) carries MORE than the Raptor (18 to ~20k lbs depending on source)

but the F-35 is smaller, lighter, has only 1 engine instead of 2, and a more efficient engine at that

all this adds up to better range

there's a reason the F-35 looks a bit chubby compared to the sleek F-22

[guppy]

i can't prove it, but i really believe the F-35 is going to have a decent range advantage over the F-22

the fuel loads are very similar, and it's even possible that the F-35C (20k lbs) carries MORE than the Raptor (18 to ~20k lbs depending on source)

but the F-35 is smaller, lighter, has only 1 engine instead of 2, and a more efficient engine at that

all this adds up to better range

there's a reason the F-35 looks a bit chubby compared to the sleek F-22

No one here will be able to prove that the F-35 will have a decent range advantage. However, if you compare percentage of fuel weight over clean all up weight, it gives a good indication on their range capabilities.

F-35A - about 45% of total weight is fuel.
F-22A - about 37% of total weight is fuel.

All else being equal, the F-35A should have a decent range advantage over the F-22A. The technologies in their engines should be about the same generation. These figures will vary for the B and C versions of the Lightning.

There is absolutely no doubt that the F-22A will be superior in air to air, being the bread and butter of the USAF. Among other things, supercruise ability will be better than the F-35. AAM weapons load is double. Even the radar will likely be better optimised for air to air. Yet, the F-35 cannot be too far off since the USN needs to have a credible air to air capability.

As for the F-35 being able to carry 14 AAMs, look at this link (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8351.html). External AAM carriage in future air combat is highly unlikely against modern air to air threats. Now if the air to air threats don't exist, why would they need 14 AAMs? It is thus unlikely that the F-35 will ever be able to carry 14 AAMs unless certain international partners are willing to fund this development.

Given the priorities, I would opt for more F-35s. The Lightnings will be able to do the job most of the time.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

No one here will be able to prove that the F-35 will have a decent range advantage. However, if you compare percentage of fuel weight over clean all up weight, it gives a good indication on their range capabilities.

F-35A - about 45% of total weight is fuel.
F-22A - about 37% of total weight is fuel.

All else being equal, the F-35A should have a decent range advantage over the F-22A. The technologies in their engines should be about the same generation. These figures will vary for the B and C versions of the Lightning.

There is absolutely no doubt that the F-22A will be superior in air to air, being the bread and butter of the USAF. Among other things, supercruise ability will be better than the F-35. AAM weapons load is double. Even the radar will likely be better optimised for air to air. Yet, the F-35 cannot be too far off since the USN needs to have a credible air to air capability.

As for the F-35 being able to carry 14 AAMs, look at this link (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8351.html). External AAM carriage in future air combat is highly unlikely against modern air to air threats. Now if the air to air threats don't exist, why would they need 14 AAMs? It is thus unlikely that the F-35 will ever be able to carry 14 AAMs unless certain international partners are willing to fund this development.

Given the priorities, I would opt for more F-35s. The Lightnings will be able to do the job most of the time.

Even without the double ejector in the works for the internal A2G weapons station (i.e. at IOC) the F-35 (all variants) will be able to carry 14 AAM's without modification. The two inboard, external hard-points can accommodate duel AAM carriage using contemporary double racks, so thats 8. 2x AAM on the outboard, external hard-point's & 4x internally. Thats 14 AAM's at IOC without future development. If we get 6x internal AAM carriage capability, then you've got 16.

Whether or nor you would ever actually need 14x AAM's is another question though.

[gf0012-aust]

Whether or nor you would ever actually need 14x AAM's is another question though.

I'd suggest that if "blue force" ever considered that it's aircraft needed to be that loaded up to deal with saturated and contested air space that other options would be in play well before blues aircraft were committed....

[guppy]

Even without the double ejector in the works for the internal A2G weapons station (i.e. at IOC) the F-35 (all variants) will be able to carry 14 AAM's without modification. The two inboard, external hard-points can accommodate duel AAM carriage using contemporary double racks, so thats 8. 2x AAM on the outboard, external hard-point's & 4x internally. Thats 14 AAM's at IOC without future development. If we get 6x internal AAM carriage capability, then you've got 16.

Whether or nor you would ever actually need 14x AAM's is another question though.

Ozzy, confirm that will include full certification? I was under the impression that the baseline certification does not include the 14 missile configuration. Physically, you may be able to fit the launchers and the missiles and insure store separation based on analysis, but to certify all the weapon stations require a full gamut of tests, on the ground and in the air. I don't remember a 14 missile config and don't remember any international partners saying that they wanted such a config as well. The baseline config priorities were for the air to mud stuff, I believe.

cheers

Guppy

[seanjames101]

USAF should buy a few eurofighter tycoons. It is simply the best fighter/bomber in europe and even possably the world

[f-22fan12]

1. since when did the F-22 operate off carriers?

if you can't get to the fight, you aren't even in the game . . .

2. even land-based, it's not as clear cut as you might believe

the F-22 is faster and possibly slightly stealthier, but:

a) the F-35 can carry more and bigger bombs
b) the avionics and situational awareness of the F-35 is superior

this last point is far more critical than most people realize



maybe in the mechanical systems, but i wouldn't be so sure about the avionics

the F-35 avionics are an improvement/evolution of what's in the F-22 and according to all indications, it is superior in this regards

I never said the F-22 was based of an aircraft carrier. I just said that as far as locating and destroying enemy SAM sights, it would be the best aircraft for the job.
And what exactly makes you think the situational awarness of the F-35 will be better? The F-22 has many planned upgrades to keep it more capable than the F-35.

[irtusk]

I never said the F-22 was based of an aircraft carrier. I just said that as far as locating and destroying enemy SAM sights, it would be the best aircraft for the job.

and i was just saying that sometimes those sam sites are only accessible from an aircraft carrier


And what exactly makes you think the situational awarness of the F-35 will be better? The F-22 has many planned upgrades to keep it more capable than the F-35.

1. more sensors are built-in to the F-35 that simply cannot be added to the F-22 (such as its DAS system that provides, among other features, 'look-through' capability so a pilot can look through the plane)
2. it's not clear that a helmet mounted sight will ever be integrated with the F-22
3. the F-22 is going to be the last aircraft to get the AIM-9X (probably 2014-2016 before it's integrated)
4. the F-35 will always get funding priority for updates since it will be the front-line aircraft doing all the dirty work and there will be so many of them. Not to mention our allies will make sure lots of upgrades get funded

the F-22 will always be the red-headed step-child when it comes to funding upgrades

[F-15 Eagle]

As for the F-35 being able to carry 14 AAMs, look at this link (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8351.html). External AAM carriage in future air combat is highly unlikely against modern air to air threats. Now if the air to air threats don't exist, why would they need 14 AAMs? It is thus unlikely that the F-35 will ever be able to carry 14 AAMs unless certain international partners are willing to fund this development.

Given the priorities, I would opt for more F-35s. The Lightnings will be able to do the job most of the time.

As Ozzy Blizzard (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/member.php?u=9020) has already pointed out the F-35 already has the capability to carry 14 AAMs. The U.S. F-35s will have this capability and so will international partners. The 14 AAMs is already a baseline configuration. If the U.S. were to go the war(although very unlikely) with Russia or China than U.S. F-35s might carry 14 AAMs when the Russians and Chinese each have some 2000+ combat aircraft. It is unlikely the F-35s will need to carry that much in a normal war but they do have the capability to carry 14 AAMs if they really need to.

[F-15 Eagle]

Ozzy, confirm that will include full certification? I was under the impression that the baseline certification does not include the 14 missile configuration. Physically, you may be able to fit the launchers and the missiles and insure store separation based on analysis, but to certify all the weapon stations require a full gamut of tests, on the ground and in the air. I don't remember a 14 missile config and don't remember any international partners saying that they wanted such a config as well. The baseline config priorities were for the air to mud stuff, I believe.

cheers

Guppy

How can you say you don't recall the F-35 having 14 AAMs when the link that you gave which is this one: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8351.html already proves the F-35 will carry 14 AAMs. The F-35 will be an outstanding air to air fighter which is why the Pentagon and the GOA support the F-35 over more F-22s.

Both American and international F-35s will having this capability if they really need to load up the F-35 though 4, 6, or 8 AAMs will be the most common air to air load out in combat but they will still have the option to carry 14 AAMs if it is needed.

[Sea Toby]

USAF should buy a few eurofighter tycoons. It is simply the best fighter/bomber in europe and even possably the world

Unfortunately, the US Congress has been providing development funding for stealth F-22s and F-35s. Therefore they wish to buy these. Plus, politically, it would be suicide to buy European fighters. Boeing is still trying to kill the Airbus tanker.

In fact, the Eurofighter doesn't provide for US manufactured jet engines from either GE or Pratt. Pratt is New England, GE is Ohio. Its hard to win the US presidency without carrying one or the other.

[Sea Toby]

F-35 weapons capability. Link:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

The aircraft can carry 14 AAMs. Why do some think it can't?

[F-15 Eagle]

F-35 weapons capability. Link:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

The aircraft can carry 14 AAMs. Why do some think it can't?

I don't know why they think that. For some reason a lot of people think the F-35 wont be a good air to air fighter like the F-15 and F-16 are.

They think it will manly be a strike aircraft and not a multi-role fighter like the F-16 and F/A-18. They always say its slow and not maneuverable and has a small payload but I know thats not true because the F-35 has F-18 speed and F-16 maneuverability and can carry more AAMs and bombs than any other fighter, and to think the F-35 will be anything less than a stellar air to air fighter is ridiculous.

I've been asking myself why people think this, but your guess is as good as mine.

Here is 3 more articles about the F-35s capability, link: http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA%20Conf%20-%20JSF%20Program%20Brief%20-%2026%20Sept%2006.pdf
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35-capabilities.html

[StingrayOZ]

Most people think that the F-35 is a 2nd rate cousin of the F-22. F-22 is sexier, sleeker, faster, stealthier, has twice the engine, and twice the cost so is a better plane.

The F-22 is overkill. Nothing can match it in a A2A dogfight all other things being equal. Only the US needs a F-22, and even then they only need <200.

The F-35 is still better than anything else in the air today. It is a much of a A2A fighter as a F-16/F-15, but a superior striker to a F-15 eagle. And a better multirole than a F-18.

At the end of the day The F-35 is a plane that is newer and had more money invested in it. It will be operated at a much larger level than the F-22 will ever dream of.

[f-22fan12]

and i was just saying that sometimes those sam sites are only accessible from an aircraft carrier



1. more sensors are built-in to the F-35 that simply cannot be added to the F-22 (such as its DAS system that provides, among other features, 'look-through' capability so a pilot can look through the plane)
2. it's not clear that a helmet mounted sight will ever be integrated with the F-22
3. the F-22 is going to be the last aircraft to get the AIM-9X (probably 2014-2016 before it's integrated)
4. the F-35 will always get funding priority for updates since it will be the front-line aircraft doing all the dirty work and there will be so many of them. Not to mention our allies will make sure lots of upgrades get funded

the F-22 will always be the red-headed step-child when it comes to funding upgrades

I couldn't disagree more. While some things you say are correct, like the fact that a few features can't be added are true, the rest isn't. The F-22 is the ONLY plane the U.S. can really trust to do the toughest missions. While the F-35 may do the "dirty work" of providing close air support to troops in Afganistan and Iraq, the F-22 will be the plane ready to attack any country equipped with an advanced air defence system. The F-22 will not be the "red-headed step-child" when it comes to upgrades. The F-35 won't truly need the upgrades as it will just be in low intensity conflicts. The F-22 will be the tip of the spear in any realy high intensity conflict.

[Sea Toby]

I couldn't disagree more. While some things you say are correct, like the fact that a few features can't be added are true, the rest isn't. The F-22 is the ONLY plane the U.S. can really trust to do the toughest missions. While the F-35 may do the "dirty work" of providing close air support to troops in Afganistan and Iraq, the F-22 will be the plane ready to attack any country equipped with an advanced air defence system. The F-22 will not be the "red-headed step-child" when it comes to upgrades. The F-35 won't truly need the upgrades as it will just be in low intensity conflicts. The F-22 will be the tip of the spear in any realy high intensity conflict.

How many Raptors are really needed for the first strike roles. We seemed to have done very well with a limited number of Nighthawks, I would suspect a similar number of more advanced Raptors could do the same. Less than 200.

Why is the US buying so much new technology for the F-35? Could it be that the US wants a front line aircraft, not a second rated one. It seems only you consider the F-35 second rate. No one else does. With their stealthiness, I would expect the F-35 to be involved in first strikes too.

[F-15 Eagle]

I couldn't disagree more. While some things you say are correct, like the fact that a few features can't be added are true, the rest isn't. The F-22 is the ONLY plane the U.S. can really trust to do the toughest missions. While the F-35 may do the "dirty work" of providing close air support to troops in Afganistan and Iraq, the F-22 will be the plane ready to attack any country equipped with an advanced air defence system. The F-22 will not be the "red-headed step-child" when it comes to upgrades. The F-35 won't truly need the upgrades as it will just be in low intensity conflicts. The F-22 will be the tip of the spear in any realy high intensity conflict.

The F-35 is more than capable to attack a country's advanced air defense system as it can gain control of the air and ground and in a high intensity war the F-35 will serve with the F-22 but since the F-35 is more versatile the F-35 can also be used in wars such as Iraq. Its really the F-35 that will do most of the work in a high intensity war with a small number of F-22s(183 of them) that will support the F-35s but the F-35 will be the main tactical warplane for all missions of the future and the F-22 is like a strategic fighter.

[irtusk]

the F-22 will be the plane ready to attack any country equipped with an advanced air defence system.

again, unless said country is only accessible via carrier

The F-22 will not be the "red-headed step-child" when it comes to upgrades.

um, IT ALREADY IS

The AIM-9X entered service in 2003, the same year the first production F-22 was delivered. Here it is 5 years later and it's going to be AT LEAST another 5 years before it's integrated

and even then, it's not going to be as effective as it could be because the JHMCS still won't be integrated


The F-35 won't truly need the upgrades as it will just be in low intensity conflicts.

good to know the navy won't be involved in any high intensity conflicts

[irtusk]

How many Raptors are really needed for the first strike roles. We seemed to have done very well with a limited number of Nighthawks, I would suspect a similar number of more advanced Raptors could do the same. Less than 200.

that's a good point, there were only ever 60 or so F-117s and 21 (now 20) B-2s for a grand total of 80 stealth planes in the US inventory

if 80 worked, 203 (183 F-22 + 20 B-2 + completely ignoring the F-35) should be more than sufficient

And you can't ignore the F-35. People act like its stealth is chopped liver. It most definitely is not.

[f-22fan12]

Okay, after 3 people trying to convince me of the F-35s capability, well, I think it has worked. I do realize that the F-35 will have the helmet mounted sights very soon and the F-22 won't have it for at least 8-10 years after its introduction. But I still have some doubts. Will the F-35 will be as good in dogfights without thrust vectoring or a large wing surface? And if the F-35 is so great, 1) why is the USAF insisting on 381 Raptors and 2) would the U.S. really risk giving its most advanced fighter aircraft to so many countries thereby greatly increasing the risk that the technology will be sold to a potential enemy?

One more thing, I don't know if any of you saw the latest version of "dogfights" the TV show but it was about the future of aerial warefare and had alot about the F-22 and F-35. One of the "scenarios" was when 4 F-22s and about 12-15 F-35s was sent to attack a country with a advanced air defense system. Then they interviewed one of the test pilots for the F-35. He said that the only plane capable of even coming close or at parity with the F-35 would be the F-22. But I disagreed.
Why would a country like Israel want the F-22 when they are supposed to receive their F-35s early? The F-22 must be better.

By the way, I enjoy this discussion, hope you guys don't hate me. I'm just debating, that's all.

[F-15 Eagle]

Okay, after 3 people trying to convince me of the F-35s capability, well, I think it has worked. I do realize that the F-35 will have the helmet mounted sights very soon and the F-22 won't have it for at least 8-10 years after its introduction. But I still have some doubts. Will the F-35 will be as good in dogfights without thrust vectoring or a large wing surface? And if the F-35 is so great, 1) why is the USAF insisting on 381 Raptors and 2) would the U.S. really risk giving its most advanced fighter aircraft to so many countries thereby greatly increasing the risk that the technology will be sold to a potential enemy?

One more thing, I don't know if any of you saw the latest version of "dogfights" the TV show but it was about the future of aerial warefare and had alot about the F-22 and F-35. One of the "scenarios" was when 4 F-22s and about 12-15 F-35s was sent to attack a country with a advanced air defense system. Then they interviewed one of the test pilots for the F-35. He said that the only plane capable of even coming close or at parity with the F-35 would be the F-22. But I disagreed.
Why would a country like Israel want the F-22 when they are supposed to receive their F-35s early? The F-22 must be better.

By the way, I enjoy this discussion, hope you guys don't hate me. I'm just debating, that's all.

1. The F-35 will still be very capable in dogfights, like the F-16 and F-15 but just not as good as the F-22 but it will still be a very capable dogfighter.
2. The USAF wants more F-22s because they will always want more high tech toys, if you give them 381 F-22s than they will want 800 F-22s and if you give them 1800 F-35s then they will want 2400 F-35s. Their like a kid wanting more candy its always more more more....
3. The U.S. Congress has banned the export of the F-22 to other countries and the exported F-35s will likely be down graded F-35s that are not as good as American F-35s. Basically the exported F-35s are only F-35s by name.
4. The only jet that can beat the F-35 in combat is the F-22 Raptor but the F-35 is still better than anything else.

[irtusk]

But I still have some doubts. Will the F-35 will be as good in dogfights without thrust vectoring or a large wing surface?

that's the beauty of high off-boresight missiles

you no longer have to maneuver directly behind someone to fire

as long as they are in range, you can get them

thus the need for huge maneuvering surfaces and thrust vectoring is reduced


And if the F-35 is so great, 1) why is the USAF insisting on 381 Raptors

i can think of several reasons, take your pick:
1) the raptor is undeniably cool and everyone likes the coolest toys
2) the raptor does have more potential with its kinematic advantages
3) a bird in hand is worth 2 or 3 in the bush

the AF might say, 'yes, would be willing to sacrifice x raptors for 2x F-35s' but it doesn't work that way. The future is unknown, the next administration might slash budgets and they end up with nothing now and nothing in the future. That's why you grab the sure thing.


and 2) would the U.S. really risk giving its most advanced fighter aircraft to so many countries thereby greatly increasing the risk that the technology will be sold to a potential enemy?

1. many people aren't happy with the tech we're giving away with the F-35
2. if the F-22 were to be exported, it would have to be sanitized, a process that would take years and lots and lots of money. The F-35 was designed from the beginning to be sanitized to limit the amount of unwanted tech transfer


Why would a country like Israel want the F-22 when they are supposed to receive their F-35s early? The F-22 must be better.

1. hype. the F-22 has been hyped and the F-35 has been downplayed. Maybe they believe it themselves, but even if they don't, it's helpful if their enemies believe it. It's a nice deterrent factor. 'Oh noes! They have the invincible Raptor! We best not tick them off!'

2. The F-22 is better (for A2A). I never said otherwise.

My points were that the F-35 has closed the gap significantly and it is not as wide as you might expect

More importantly, the US NEEDS the F-35

we currently have over 1200 F-16s, over 700 F-15s, over 350 A-10s, 146 Harriers, and hundreds upon hundreds of F-18s (not counting Super Hornets) that will all need to be replaced

that's well over 2500 combat aircraft

no matter how good the Raptor is, it can never replace that quantity because
1) we can't afford it
2) even if we could, we simply can't build them fast enough to keep pace with the ever-increasing pace of retirements

The F-35 was designed to be both affordable and mass-produced in an assembly-line like process

The F-35 will provide the backbone of US air power for decades to come, it is the most critical military acquisition process in a long, long time.

A key part of keeping it affordable is getting other people to buy it to help share development costs and keep unit costs low.

As you might have noticed, it seems like practically every airforce in the world is in the midst of a replenishment cycle. The main knock on the F-35 in these competitions has been the possibility of delays and the uncertainty of the cost. That's why it's imperative we get this program cranking. Once all these airforces have selected their fighter, it might be 30 years before they look again and we will have lost our window.

And to be blunt, providing weapons to all these countries spreads our strategic influence

And i keep mentioning carriers and to me this is a very critical part. In my eyes the Navy took a step backwards by moving from the F-14 to the F-18 in both speed and more importantly range. But the Navy didn't care because the F-18 was cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and more reliable. Carriers now have to operate closer to shore and can't have patrols as far out, thus leaving them more vulnerable. Not to mention they have no stealth attack planes to penetrate heavy air defenses.

The F-35 will go a long ways to rectifying this situation with its superior range and stealth capabilities

The Harrier has been a death trap for Marines with its antiquated flight control system. I look forward to the more modern, care-free controls of the F-35B.

The future of CAS is altitude. A-10s are receiving upgrades to work from altitude, but they are poorly suited for the task with their pathetic speed and poor endurance. The integrated sensors of the F-35 will do a far superior job (both targetting the enemy and avoiding 'friendly' fire) and its tremendous endurance will allow it to loiter over the battlefield for extended periods of time.

In the air, the F-35's steath, sensor fusion, helmet cueing and high off-boresight missiles will be more than a match for any enemy plane.

The F-35 will never be as sexy as the F-22, but it is more than capable of doing the task laid before it.

[f-22fan12]

1. The F-35 will still be very capable in dogfights, like the F-16 and F-15 but just not as good as the F-22 but it will still be a very capable dogfighter.
2. The USAF wants more F-22s because they will always want more high tech toys, if you give them 381 F-22s than they will want 800 F-22s and if you give them 1800 F-35s then they will want 2400 F-35s. Their like a kid wanting more candy its always more more more....
3. The U.S. Congress has banned the export of the F-22 to other countries and the exported F-35s will likely be down graded F-35s that are not as good as American F-35s. Basically the exported F-35s are only F-35s by name.
4. The only jet that can beat the F-35 in combat is the F-22 Raptor but the F-35 is still better than anything else.

Thank you both for the replies but on point 3, you said the exported F-35s will only by F-35s by name. Where is your proof, as far as I know the American and exported F-35s will be the same.

By the way, what is the comparison for both of these airplanes in the electronic warfare roles?

And I am kind of coming to my senses as far as realizing the F-35's capability. The F-22 will still be better, but the F-35 will be better than everything else, at least that's my understanding.

The Raptor Rules! :D

[irtusk]

Thank you both for the replies but on point 3, you said the exported F-35s will only by F-35s by name. Where is your proof, as far as I know the American and exported F-35s will be the same.

there has been contradictory information as to what if any differences there will be between domestic and export F-35s

some have said export varieties will have degraded stealth, others have vigorously denied this

it just isn't clear yet


By the way, what is the comparison for both of these airplanes in the electronic warfare roles?

the F-35 is probably more advanced but the F-22 does have the physically larger AESA if that makes a difference

however, look for most EW roles to be fulfilled by the EA-18G Grower, as that is its purpose


And I am kind of coming to my senses as far as realizing the F-35's capability. The F-22 will still be better, but the F-35 will be better than everything else, at least that's my understanding.

The Raptor Rules! :D


exactly

[Sea Toby]

I find it amazing how so many are so concerned with the recent F-15 structural problems, and that the air force has a fighter gap because of this..... :hitwall

Well, the US Navy has a looming fighter gap too, and its been around for a while. Notice the complaints about smaller carrier air groups.

[AegisFC]

Well, the US Navy has a looming fighter gap too, and its been around for a while. Notice the complaints about smaller carrier air groups.

The groups may be smaller but the air craft require less maintenance between sorties and are available for tasking more than past aircraft so the current and future airwing is just as effective as past larger wings.

[rjmaz1]

Will the F-35 will be as good in dogfights without thrust vectoring or a large wing surface?
The F-22's whole design is aimed at high speed. A high speed aircraft cannot be agile at low speed as wing design is a compromise. If the F-22 did not have thrust vectoring i could bet money that it would have had low speed agility that was lower than the F-16, Super Hornet and Eurofighter.

The F-35's wing design has compromised extreme supersonic speeds for subsonic agility. The F-35's wing provides more lift at lower speeds than the F-22 so it does not need thrust vectoring

Hopefully this helps a little. In a turning dog fight i'd say the F-35 would beat a F-22 on average, mainly due to a helmet mounted sight giving a huge advantage to the the F-35 and thrust vectoring giving only a small advantage to the F-22.

[DarthAmerica]

The F-22's whole design is aimed at high speed. A high speed aircraft cannot be agile at low speed as wing design is a compromise. If the F-22 did not have thrust vectoring i could bet money that it would have had low speed agility that was lower than the F-16, Super Hornet and Eurofighter.

The F-35's wing design has compromised extreme supersonic speeds for subsonic agility. The F-35's wing provides more lift at lower speeds than the F-22 so it does not need thrust vectoring

Hopefully this helps a little. In a turning dog fight i'd say the F-35 would beat a F-22 on average, mainly due to a helmet mounted sight giving a huge advantage to the the F-35 and thrust vectoring giving only a small advantage to the F-22.

1. How do you explain the F-15 and Su-27? Both fast and extremely agile?

2. F-22 TVC is for high altitude supersonic agility where traditional control surfaces are less effective.

3. Why would an F-22 ever slow down, come down allow itself to be detected to enter into WW II-Vietnam style air combat when it can fight from positions of advantage engaging at will almost completely outside the engagement envelop of any other fighter?

Flown properly I've red pilots during training have been unable to even engage it...

Invisibility - even with eyes on

When the Raptor finds itself in a dogfight, it is no longer beyond visual range, but the advantage of stealth isn't diminished. It maintains "high ground" even at close range.

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power.

Turn and burn

Thrust vectoring, internal weapons mounting and increased power all contribute to the Raptor's maneuvering advantage. From the cockpit of the F-22, Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters.

This boost of thrust enables the Raptor to take off with a full load of weapons and fuel. Furthermore, mach speeds are attainable without afterburners (supercruise) and coincidently, the F-22 features better fuel efficiency than legacy fighters. This increased fuel efficiency raises eyebrows considering the F-22 boasts 20,000 more pounds of thrust than the F-15 Eagle it's replacing.

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831


Some of last few F-22 comments don't seem to be in line with what is happening in the real world.


-DA

[irtusk]

1. How do you explain the F-15 and Su-27? Both fast and extremely agile?

is the F-15 really that agile?

both the F-16 and F-18 are supposed to outturn it . . .


2. F-22 TVC is for high altitude supersonic agility where traditional control surfaces are less effective.

that is true

but that doesn't mean rjmaz1's claim is false

almost completely outside the engagement envelop of any other fighter?

the engagement envelope is more dependent on the missile than the plane (although speed and altitude can have an effect)


Flown properly I've red pilots during training have been unable to even engage it...

that was where the F-22s stealth prevented the missile's radar from locking on even when the opposing pilot could see it

the F-35 also has stealth . . .

[DarthAmerica]

is the F-15 really that agile?

both the F-16 and F-18 are supposed to outturn it . . .

It has over 100 air to air victories. A lot of those in a time where BVR combat was in it's infancy and highly unreliable and prior to high off boresight missiles. What do you think?

ht*p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_15CH-POK8

That's the heaviest variant BTW.


that is true

but that doesn't mean rjmaz1's claim is false

Being designed for high speed doesn't mean a lack of agility. Also the Raptor wasn't just designed for high speed. It was also made for super maneuverability. rjmaz1's claim is completely false.



the engagement envelope is more dependent on the missile than the plane (although speed and altitude can have an effect)

that was where the F-22s stealth prevented the missile's radar from locking on even when the opposing pilot could see it

the F-35 also has stealth . . .

You are contradicting yourself with the way you qualified your comment. Missiles have come a long way but a fighter still needs to position the missile properly for the best chance against a fleeting target. With supersonic rates of change in the velocity of the F-22 and an opponent, any missile shot would have to physically work harder to meet with a target. Missiles only have so much fuel to burn then they rely on kinetic energy to carry them to the target. When their control surfaces are used to maneuver they bleed off that energy through induced drag which slows them down thus decreasing performance. If they slow down enough, they fall of out the sky.

Gravity also plays a role. If the F-22 has a ~4-8 mile altitude advantage(~30000ft vs ~60000ft+) that alone is enough to seriously reduce the probability of a hit because the missile has to spend limited KE climbing up to the F-22. With altitude advantage like that, the shortest distance between an F-22 and an opponent would be when they passed each other and the F-22 is straight overhead. Altitudes where this would happen could easily see a rate of closure ~M2.0 or greater. Remember F=V^2/R( where F=G force, V=velocity and R=radius of the turn. Since the missile is trying to hit the F-22 rather than turn about it, R is a decreasing value. Look what happens to F if R decreases. Also the more the missile actually turns toward the F-22 the V will increase with the COS of the angle. When V increases what happens?

What does all that mean? Well it means that the fighter pilot still has to try to position the missile for the best shot regardless and the sheer performance of the F-22 makes that very difficult for the firing aircraft and the missile. Even without stealth the F-22s flight performance would give it tremendous advantages over any other aircraft.

Words used by pilots to describe it are "unmatched power and maneuverability". Think about that.

-DA

[irtusk]

It has over 100 air to air victories. A lot of those in a time where BVR combat was in it's infancy and highly unreliable and prior to high off boresight missiles. What do you think?

1. those victories weren't against F-16s and F-18s
2. the opponent pilots sucked
3. there is more to air combat than plane-vs-plane, there is also the support infrastructure (awacs, jamming, intelligence, etc, etc)


ht*p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_15CH-POK8


????

i only watched the first 2 minutes of it, but i missed the 'impressive manoueverability' part of it

maybe that was in minute 6?



Being designed for high speed doesn't mean a lack of agility. Also the Raptor wasn't just designed for high speed. It was also made for super maneuverability. rjmaz1's claim is completely false.

rjmaz1's claim is that the wing is optimized for high speed and thus compromised manoueverability

supermanoueverability was added with huge control surfaces and (more importantly) thrust vectoring

both statements could be true, i don't know enough to say

but i do know enough to say that you haven't disproved him



You are contradicting yourself with the way you qualified your comment.

not at all

speed and altitude do affect the range of a missile

but so does the type of missile

for instance the Su-30 can carry ginormous A2A missiles with bigger motors that can outrange an AMRAAM no matter what speed and altitude a Raptor is operating at

or the Meteor which has 'three to six times the kinematic performance of current air/air missiles of its type' because of its more efficient ramjet engine


Missiles have come a long way but a fighter still needs to position the missile properly for the best chance against a fleeting target.

it is not a NEED in the vast majority of cases


Gravity also plays a role. If the F-22 has a ~4-8 mile altitude advantage(~30000ft vs ~60000ft+)

and if the F-22 doesn't have an altitude advantage?

the F-22 isn't the only plane that can operate at 60000+ ft . . .

and sometimes it might come in on the deck to help avoid radar coverage


Words used by pilots to describe it are "unmatched power and maneuverability". Think about that.

think about what?

i never said the F-22 wasn't the best

i'm just saying the F-35 isn't as far behind as some seem to believe

[stigmata]

i never said the F-22 wasn't the best

i'm just saying the F-35 isn't as far behind as some seem to believeLow signature is not the holy grail in ATA, speed is more important.
Do you honestly believe USA would export F-35 to half the world if they thought it would be any problem to shoot them off the sky if need be ?

[DarthAmerica]

1. those victories weren't against F-16s and F-18s
2. the opponent pilots sucked
3. there is more to air combat than plane-vs-plane, there is also the support infrastructure (awacs, jamming, intelligence, etc, etc)

Strawman. Doesn't need to be F-16/18. All of these fighters from the 3rd and 4th generation have similar or comparable performance. You think 100/100 pilots sucked? Not likely. Also you have simply heard us here mention things like awacs, jamming and such and regurgitating it here without understanding the context. If a plane has 100+ aerial victories vs 0 losses it's demonstrated that it's maneuverability, however good, is not an issue.



????

i only watched the first 2 minutes of it, but i missed the 'impressive manoueverability' part of it

maybe that was in minute 6?

Here is a hint, you didn't watch it LONG ENOUGH. Think about what I'm trying to tell you.


rjmaz1's claim is that the wing is optimized for high speed and thus compromised manoueverability

supermanoueverability was added with huge control surfaces and (more importantly) thrust vectoring

both statements could be true, i don't know enough to say

but i do know enough to say that you haven't disproved him

No you don't. Thats obvious.


not at all

speed and altitude do affect the range of a missile

but so does the type of missile

for instance the Su-30 can carry ginormous A2A missiles with bigger motors that can outrange an AMRAAM no matter what speed and altitude a Raptor is operating at

Oh boy here we go with Su-30s and big missiles...

or the Meteor which has 'three to six times the kinematic performance of current air/air missiles of its type' because of its more efficient ramjet engine

The propulsion scheme of the METEOR is completely different from contemporary missile design. Think ballistic missile vs cruise missile and end game.

it is not a NEED in the vast majority of cases

Absolutely incorrect. Missile launch parameters are always critical to a successful engagement. Especially in the first few critical seconds where the missile's processor has to make choices about the optimum flight profile to merge with a target.


and if the F-22 doesn't have an altitude advantage?

Then the pilot isn't exploiting that advantage. Hopefully for some reason otherwise he is not using one of his/her strengths.

the F-22 isn't the only plane that can operate at 60000+ ft . . .

No one ever said it was. But it is the only fighter that can fight the way it does at those altitudes. Oh, except for the YF-23. But I don't think the F-22 needs to worry about combat with YF-23's anymore.


and sometimes it might come in on the deck to help avoid radar coverage

OK but why not take advantage of it's signature management and keep the energy advantage as well? I'm just sayin'...

think about what?

i never said the F-22 wasn't the best

i'm just saying the F-35 isn't as far behind as some seem to believe

No one is saying the F-35 is behind. It's just not in the same class as the F-22 in the ATA or SEAD/DEAD role. Perhaps in other areas as well but the capabilities of the avionics are not public information.

-DA

[Sea Toby]

As I read the old documents going back a few years, Congress and the Pentagon agreed to stop buyng F-22s when we were ready to start buying F-35s. All through this process the Air Force has wanted to buy more F-22s, despite the agreement. Well, the first program F-35s will be bought this year, its time for the Air Force to submit. Just like a few years ago, the same situation exists, there is only so much funding to fund one aircraft's program. Its not the Congress' problem the Air Force couldn't afford enough of the high priced F-22s the Air Force wants.

The administration, the Pentagon, and the DoD are ready to move on with its long held plans. Other nations are waiting and watching. The US wants the other nations to live up to their plans with numbers, the other nations are watching the US live up to its plans too.

Its time to move on.....

[irtusk]

Low signature is not the holy grail in ATA, speed is more important.

so you think the MiG-21 is better than the F-35?

how did a Mach 1.8 F-18 shoot down a Mach 2.8 MiG-25?

speed isn't the end all / be all of combat effectiveness


Do you honestly believe USA would export F-35 to half the world if they thought it would be any problem to shoot them off the sky if need be ?

1. yes

they've done it in the past, exporting top-of-the-line aircraft (F-14)

2. the F-22 is still better

3. as i mentioned before, it is more than just the aircraft itself that determines the outcome of a battle

even if an opponent was equipped with say 20 raptors, the US would still win because of all their support capabilities (awacs, satellite, intelligence, hammering airfield with tomahawks, etc, etc)

[irtusk]

If a plane has 100+ aerial victories vs 0 losses it's demonstrated that it's maneuverability, however good, is not an issue.

1. i never said it's manoueverability was bad, just nothing special
2. most of those victories came against older model planes. against current generation planes, i doubt it would fare as well


Here is a hint, you didn't watch it LONG ENOUGH. Think about what I'm trying to tell you.

here's a hint:
i'm not going to sit here for 10 minutes to try to figure out what you want me to see

if there's something specific, give a time marker


The propulsion scheme of the METEOR is completely different from contemporary missile design. Think ballistic missile vs cruise missile and end game.

and?

your point is?

i said "the engagement envelope is more dependent on the missile than the plane (although speed and altitude can have an effect)"

which is exactly correct

some missiles (like the Meteor) have a far superior engagement envelope to other missiles (like the AMRAAM) even if the other missile has a kinematic launch advantage


Absolutely incorrect. Missile launch parameters are always critical to a successful engagement. Especially in the first few critical seconds where the missile's processor has to make choices about the optimum flight profile to merge with a target.

ROE means most launches will be WVR which means well within the missile's engagement zone regardless of its launch parameters


No one ever said it was. But it is the only fighter that can fight the way it does at those altitudes. Oh, except for the YF-23.

what do you mean 'fight the way it does at those altitudes'?

you mean manoueverability?

we were just talking about kinetic advantages (speed and altitude) and there are several planes that can approach the raptor's capabilities in this regard (MiG-25, MiG-31, EF, Su-30)



OK but why not take advantage of it's signature management and keep the energy advantage as well? I'm just sayin'...

because stealth doesn't mean invisible to radar, just reduced detection range

and at 60000' it might be imminently detectable to the air defense system around the designated target so the mission calls for it to go in on the deck

[DarthAmerica]

so you think the MiG-21 is better than the F-35?

how did a Mach 1.8 F-18 shoot down a Mach 2.8 MiG-25?

speed isn't the end all / be all of combat effectiveness

ITARS limits what can be exported. The F-22 contains technology restrictions. Also, what Mig-25 was shot down by an F/A-18C? Are you sure you don't have that backwards? Also, what Mig-25 going M2.8 has been shot down by another fighter?

-DA

[stigmata]

Israeli F-15 has been able to shoot down MiG 25, but only after careful planning, to get it into a trap.
Also, israeli pilots claim, that had they had the syrians aircraft, and the syrians had israels, israeli pilots score would still be the same.

[irtusk]

Also, what Mig-25 was shot down by an F/A-18C? Are you sure you don't have that backwards?


oops, i knew of the F-18 shot down by the MiG-25, but i thought there was also the converse

guess not

but the F-18 did shoot down MiG-21s which can go faster


Also, what Mig-25 going M2.8 has been shot down by another fighter?


well see that's the point

fighters don't travel at max speed all the time

most shootdowns in vietnam occurred when one plane didn't even realize the other was there

speed is only useful if you know to use it

stealth is always useful

stealth+speed is even better of course

[stigmata]

speed is only useful if you know to use it I suggest you are not a fighter pilot, or even a combat pilot, if you dont know to use speed ;)so it is always useful.
Stealth is of no use if you cant get there fast enough.

[DarthAmerica]

1. i never said it's manoueverability was bad, just nothing special
2. most of those victories came against older model planes. against current generation planes, i doubt it would fare as well

Then you would again be wrong. The F-15 still continues to enjoy avionics and performance advantages over todays jets and overall is still the most dominant fighter. It's nearest competitor is the Flanker but that platform lacks in the avionics department.


here's a hint:
i'm not going to sit here for 10 minutes to try to figure out what you want me to see

if there's something specific, give a time marker

It's not what, it's how long.



and?

your point is?

i said "the engagement envelope is more dependent on the missile than the plane (although speed and altitude can have an effect)"

which is exactly correct

No it's very incorrect. The launching platform can considerably influence the outcome of an engagement. You need to consider what is going on in the first few seconds of the engagement. If you are unsure, ask and I'll explain it in detail for you. Don't continue to assert things you don't know. Otherwise, prove it doesn't matter. I guarantee you can't.


some missiles (like the Meteor) have a far superior engagement envelope to other missiles (like the AMRAAM) even if the other missile has a kinematic launch advantage

Strawman and I suspect you don't understand what I'm talking about.



ROE means most launches will be WVR which means well within the missile's engagement zone regardless of its launch parameters

Nope, not hardy on either point. WVR is actually less common than BVR even with ROE and the last part of your sentence is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.



what do you mean 'fight the way it does at those altitudes'?

you mean manoueverability?

we were just talking about kinetic advantages (speed and altitude) and there are several planes that can approach the raptor's capabilities in this regard (MiG-25, MiG-31, EF, Su-30)

I'm talking energy! None of those planes even nearly approach what an F-22 does although Mig-25/31 have some limited potential. If the Mig-25 only had the flexibility of the F-15...SCARY. Please I'm begging you not to even respond to this unless you can cite some sort of professional analysis or explain it using physics. Otherwise NFC on this.

Example of what speed and stealth does:

Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold History of the Persian Gulf War. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993, pp 125-126. Quote: But as the Ravens began their second orbit in a counterclockwise turn toward the Syrian border (over Al-Qaim (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Al-Qa%27im%20%28town%29)), a MiG-25 suddenly darted toward them at high speed. The Iraqi fired one air-to-air missile at the lead Raven and two at his wingman. The missiles flew wide, but the Ravens dived to escape and then, uncertain where the MiG was lurking, turned back to Saudi Arabia.


because stealth doesn't mean invisible to radar, just reduced detection range

and at 60000' it might be imminently detectable to the air defense system around the designated target so the mission calls for it to go in on the deck


OK so an F-22 up at 60000 ft, pretty much out of range of all but the largest SAMs which by doctrine are protected by SHORAD or point defenses that use IR/RF/Optical guidance, is going to fly itself into those defenses instead of using it's speed and signature to avoid the threat? Does that even make sense to you? Again, if you respond to this, please no one liners or assertions. Describe the flight profile for this and the nature of the threat.

-DA

[F-15 Eagle]

As I read the old documents going back a few years, Congress and the Pentagon agreed to stop buyng F-22s when we were ready to start buying F-35s. All through this process the Air Force has wanted to buy more F-22s, despite the agreement. Well, the first program F-35s will be bought this year, its time for the Air Force to submit. Just like a few years ago, the same situation exists, there is only so much funding to fund one aircraft's program. Its not the Congress' problem the Air Force couldn't afford enough of the high priced F-22s the Air Force wants.

The administration, the Pentagon, and the DoD are ready to move on with its long held plans. Other nations are waiting and watching. The US wants the other nations to live up to their plans with numbers, the other nations are watching the US live up to its plans too.

Its time to move on.....

Yes you are 100% correct. Politically the F-35 is in very good shape with the recent flight of the F-35B STOVL, but the F-22 on the other hand is not so great. Funds have been appointed to keep the F-22 line until the next president but nether McCain or Obama seam to support the F-22, plus with the leadership change in the USAF and the last two supporters were fired. But the F-35 will survive.

Here is a link: http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/704902.html

[irtusk]

I suggest you are not a fighter pilot, or even a combat pilot, if you dont know to use speed ;)so it is always useful.

planes have cruising speeds and max speeds

they can't go max speed all the time or else they would run out of fuel

so they go 'cruising' until the situation calls for a burst

the problem of course arises when you are caught unaware and don't realize the situation (such as when the enemy sneaks up behind you and sends a missile up your tailpipe)

for the current generation of fighters, max speed(fighter x) > cruising speed(fighter y)

so until you can cruise faster than the max speed of other fighters, speed is only useful if you know when to use it


Stealth is of no use if you cant get there fast enough.

fast enough for what?

if the enemy doesn't know you're there, you have all the time in the world

[DarthAmerica]

oops, i knew of the F-18 shot down by the MiG-25, but i thought there was also the converse

guess not

but the F-18 did shoot down MiG-21s which can go faster

neither! The F-18 and Mig-21 are both subsonic fighters with brief supersonic dash capability. The small difference in absolute speed between the two is irrelevant. The F-18 does however have considerable BVR weapon and avionics advantages though over the Mig-21. Just like the F-22 has over all other fighters including the F-35.



well see that's the point

fighters don't travel at max speed all the time

Who said they do? The F-22 does cruise at or near the maximum speed of other fighters though. Huge advantage.

most shootdowns in vietnam occurred when one plane didn't even realize the other was there

speed is only useful if you know to use it

stealth is always useful

stealth+speed is even better of course

All that is obvious and I'm not sure why you posted it. What is not obvious is this. The F-22 has the ability to manipulate time when it fights other fighters and IADS. To use an analogy the F-22 is like Neo or an Agent fighting regular people in the movie The Matrix except most of the time the F-22 will not even be visible which only enhances the F-22's power over time. No other fighter does that except perhaps the SR-71 and Mig-25 to a lesser extent although they perform different less flexible missions.

-DA

[irtusk]

Then you would again be wrong. The F-15 still continues to enjoy avionics and performance advantages over todays jets and overall is still the most dominant fighter. It's nearest competitor is the Flanker but that platform lacks in the avionics department.

please try to stay on topic

namely the F-15 proves rjmaz1 wrong because it doesn't compromise between speed and agility

and the fact you have produced zero evidence to backup such a claim



It's not what, it's how long.

you posted that video to show agile the F-15 is (unless we've had a massive breakdown in communications here)

i'm not seeing it



No it's very incorrect. The launching platform can considerably influence the outcome of an engagement.

and so can the type of missile

yes or no?


You need to consider what is going on in the first few seconds of the engagement.

in the old world, they would manouevre for a better a shot
in the new world, they may just shoot as is


If you are unsure, ask and I'll explain it in detail for you. Don't continue to assert things you don't know. Otherwise, prove it doesn't matter. I guarantee you can't.

enough with the high and mighty stuff already



some missiles (like the Meteor) have a far superior engagement envelope to other missiles (like the AMRAAM) even if the other missile has a kinematic launch advantage

Strawman

my contention is that the type of missile can make more of a difference than the launch platform

showing a missile that can do just what i said is not a strawman


and I suspect you don't understand what I'm talking about.

and i suspect that even you don't understand what you're talking about sometimes ;)



Nope, not hardy on either point. WVR is actually less common than BVR

really? that's an incredible claim

WVR kills have been far, far more common, even recently


even with ROE

if the ROE is you have to get a visual ID, how are you supposed to do that BVR?


and the last part of your sentence is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

if you can see the opposing aircraft, how can it possibly be outside the engagement envelope of the Meteor?

no matter what your kinetic situation, if you can see the opponent, you're close enough for the Meteor to get a kill



I'm talking energy! None of those planes even nearly approach what an F-22

really? list the speed/altitudes of each of these planes: F-22, EF, Su-30, MiG-25, MiG-31 and show how they don't even approach the F-22

Please I'm begging you not to even respond to this unless you can cite some sort of professional analysis or explain it using physics. Otherwise NFC on this.

lol, that's rich

trying to avoid substance with the 'i'm so superior to you, i don't even have to deign to explain myself' approach


Example of what speed and stealth does:


the MiG-25 is stealthy?

i'm missing what you're trying to show here



OK so an F-22 up at 60000 ft, pretty much out of range of all but the largest SAMs which by doctrine are protected by SHORAD or point defenses that use IR/RF/Optical guidance, is going to fly itself into those defenses instead of using it's speed and signature to avoid the threat? Does that even make sense to you?

it all depends on the situation

on the deck it may be able to penetrate BETWEEN two sites so it can carry on to its target

if you look at the history of AA vs planes, it's been a constant swing between the best way to avoid them

sometimes its been to go high, then it will switch and it will be to go low, then it will come back and they decide its best to stay high

i wouldn't count on staying high being the only answer for the next 30 years


Again, if you respond to this, please no one liners or assertions. Describe the flight profile for this and the nature of the threat.

again can you have a discussion without resorting to such petty comments?

[DarthAmerica]

please try to stay on topic

namely the F-15 proves rjmaz1 wrong because it doesn't compromise between speed and agility

and the fact you have produced zero evidence to backup such a claim

you posted that video to show agile the F-15 is (unless we've had a massive breakdown in communications here)

i'm not seeing it

It was backed up. You just didn't notice. The F-15 flying around in and out of burner making high G turns for 10 minutes tells you a lot about it's ability to maintain kinetic energy which is the key to air to air combat. I wasn't referring to air show tricks at all.


and so can the type of missile

yes or no?

No if it isn't launched under the right conditions. The missile has ~2-4seconds give or take of thrust where it is gaining kinetic energy. If launched from a less than ideal conditions it will have to use valuable and limited KE to reposition itself against a target with far more energy. Moreover, high rates of closure can exceed the capabilities of the guidance system to adjust the flight profile of the missile.



in the old world, they would manouevre for a better a shot
in the new world, they may just shoot as is

No, they will still try to get the highest percentage shot where possible otherwise they are wasting a missile.



enough with the high and mighty stuff already

No one is being high and mighty. I'm trying to explain to you how these things work in the real world. Don't get offended please. most books and most websites do not go into the how these things really work. They simply reprint or list spec sheets in a vacuum. Things like high off boresight missiles negate the need for pointing the nose at the target. Well yes but there are still limitations which I have explained to you.



my contention is that the type of missile can make more of a difference than the launch platform
showing a missile that can do just what i said is not a strawman

The missile is part of the kill chain and not the kill chain. The weakest link breaks the chain. When missiles are designed, engineers optimize the design to be used under the kinds of conditions they expect to encounter most often in order to achieve the most efficient design, save cost and weight. Missiles have launch envelopes for certain types of targets. Faster targets will get out of the envelop much more quickly and thus the missiles performance is reduced. Think about it like this. A Mig-29 pilot looks up and sees two aircraft. One is an F-22 moving at M1.5 and the other is an F-15 doing M1.0. They are both at 50,000ft and the Mig is at 30,000 ft directly below. He fires an AAM at both. The AAM has to climb to that altitude using a few seconds of thrust while turning and constantly trading velocity to gravity, drag and maneuver. Then it has to catch the targets. Both would be very difficult to hit. Most short range HOBS missiles have speeds of about M2.5. But even so, that is only briefly as the motor shuts off soon after launch within seconds. So the missile is slowing down while the fighters maintain speed. Even if they don't take evasive action a hit would be difficult. If they did, the missile has to maneuver more and lose velocity even faster. After a while it isn't able to make the intercept. If the rate of closure is too great, depending on what missile, the guidance algorithms may not be able to handle the amount of data. Do you understand that?



and i suspect that even you don't understand what you're talking about sometimes ;)

Thats your opinion.


really? that's an incredible claim

WVR kills have been far, far more common, even recently

Not for the USAF. Look it up.



if the ROE is you have to get a visual ID, how are you supposed to do that BVR?

How do you take a picture of a persons face from 50 meters? Also, some aircraft have NCTR which is a classified technique much in demand. It's a reason why F-15s have been preferred in some cases for air to air missions.



if you can see the opposing aircraft, how can it possibly be outside the engagement envelope of the Meteor?

no matter what your kinetic situation, if you can see the opponent, you're close enough for the Meteor to get a kill

How by magic? Where will it get the telemetry data?


really? list the speed/altitudes of each of these planes: F-22, EF, Su-30, MiG-25, MiG-31 and show how they don't even approach the F-22

No, you can do that yourself. If you look into it enough, you will learn that the those aircraft are essentially non maneuvering targets at F-22 altitudes. Also, if they tried to keep up with an F-22 at altitude, they would run out of fuel very quickly because they have to use afterburner to maintain speed and altitude.



lol, that's rich

trying to avoid substance with the 'i'm so superior to you, i don't even have to deign to explain myself' approach

I never said I was superior. I do understand this subject matter better though.



the MiG-25 is stealthy?

i'm missing what you're trying to show here

Any aircraft can be stealthy. Google the definition.




it all depends on the situation

on the deck it may be able to penetrate BETWEEN two sites so it can carry on to its target

if you look at the history of AA vs planes, it's been a constant swing between the best way to avoid them

No the trend has been to fly even higher. Learned that lesson in the Gulf War. Also, with the F-22 signature management it isn't practical to place EW sites close enough to close all the gaps. Why give up the fuel efficiency and speed when you don't have to?



sometimes its been to go high, then it will switch and it will be to go low, then it will come back and they decide its best to stay high

i wouldn't count on staying high being the only answer for the next 30 years

Not the only answer no. I didn't say that. But definitely to fly faster.


again can you have a discussion without resorting to such petty comments?


The comments aren't petty. If you are offended I apologize but this is how the real world works. I talk about things as they are in real life. Thats often going to be in stark contrast to what you read on the internet.

-DA

[irtusk]

It was backed up. You just didn't notice. The F-15 flying around in and out of burner making high G turns for 10 minutes tells you a lot about it's ability to maintain kinetic energy which is the key to air to air combat. I wasn't referring to air show tricks at all.

do you even know what kinetic energy is? serious question

if you don't, you can look it up

Admin: Text deleted. Read the forum rules about engagement behaviour.

there was 0 display of maintaining kinetic energy there. In fact, it was pretty much the exact opposite. It was low and slow (certainly under sound barrier) because it was an air show.


No if it isn't launched under the right conditions. The missile has ~2-4seconds give or take of thrust where it is gaining kinetic energy

do you understand how Meteor works? serious question

if you don't, you can look it up

Admin: Text deleted. Read the forum rules about engagement behaviour.


"The air breathing motor proposed for Meteor provides sustained power, following the initial boost, to chase and destroy the target."


No, they will still try to get the highest percentage shot where possible otherwise they are wasting a missile.

and if you already have 99% kill probability as is, why expose yourself to more danger? just shoot and scoot


Things like high off boresight missiles negate the need for pointing the nose at the target. Well yes but there are still limitations which I have explained to you.

yes there are limitations, but on the other hand the Raptor doesn't render them useless either which is what you were implying


Most short range HOBS missiles have speeds of about M2.5. But even so, that is only briefly as the motor shuts off soon after launch within seconds.

but i was talking about the Meteor where this clearly isn't the case

Do you understand that?

i understand missile design has progressed. do you?



WVR kills have been far, far more common, even recently

Not for the USAF. Look it up.

you're flat out wrong on this

let us examine A2A since 1991
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_302.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml

what do we see?
7 AMRAAMs and a ton of sidewinders

now let's look at some of those AMRAAM kills:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept2004/0904aces.asp


who came to lower altitude to see the six Galebs
. . .
Wright got the first Galeb with an AIM-120 fired over a distance of 5,000 feet.
. . .
Tight rules of engagement demanded double validation of targets.

The same rules applied five years later during Operation Allied Force, NATO’s 78-day air campaign over Serbia and Kosovo
. . .
Rodriguez launched his AMRAAM. The MiG-29 “exploded over the western mountains of Kosovo,” said Rodriguez. Snow on the mountains reflected the tremendous flash. “It was like 10 or 15 football fields right next to each other. It just lit up the night sky like nothing I’ve ever seen before.”
. . .
Two minutes later, Shower spotted an unidentified aircraft launching out of Batajnica
. . .
Now the MiG-29 was closing in on him and nearby F-117s.
. . .
Shower took one more shot and this time, the AIM-120 found its mark
. . .
Two days later, ANG Capt. Jeffrey C. Hwang chalked up two victories. He engaged a MiG-29 leader and wingman, both at close range, with AIM-120s

in fact the most recent kill was within extremely close range when the spy plane played bumper cars with the chinese fighter


I never said I was superior. I do understand this subject matter better though.

Admin: Text deleted. Read the forum rules about excessive icon usage - in this case it also ties in with expected engagement behaviour.



How do you take a picture of a persons face from 50 meters?

if you can get an optical zoom good enough for a positive ID, you're WVR


Also, some aircraft have NCTR which is a classified technique much in demand. It's a reason why F-15s have been preferred in some cases for air to air missions.

which also isn't fully trusted which is why the RoE still usually specify a visual ID regardless of what the NCTR thinks it is


How by magic? Where will it get the telemetry data?

well if you read the sales brochure for the Meteor you would realize that it is fed targetting data for the expected interception point before launch and it can receive live targetting updates via datalink from either the launching aircraft or an AWACS

never mind that you are once again trying to change the subject which was:
if you are WVR of a plane, you are almost certainly within the no-escape zone of a Meteor no matter the kinetic situation (within reason)


No, you can do that yourself.

afraid of what you'll find?

basically they're all mach 2.5+ class aircraft with a 60,000+ service ceiling

the F-22 may be slightly better, but not dramatically so


If you look into it enough, you will learn that the those aircraft are essentially non maneuvering targets at F-22 altitudes.

1. and if you looked at modern mach 5+ missiles you would realize that manoueverability means squat

2. what's with the subject change yet again? the claim was that the F-22 could launch missiles so much higher and faster than any competitor, that it could stay outside the engagement zone of any other fighter

this clearly isn't the case

thus the discussion was about the energy advantage associated with a fast and high launch not the manoueverability of a plane in such a position

Any aircraft can be stealthy. Google the definition.

yet another deflection

getting back to the point, what was your point about the MiG-25 and the Raven?


No the trend has been to fly even higher.

:onfloorl:

then explain the evolution of the B-1

original B-1 was Mach2+ and flew at altitude
B-1B was subsonic and had terrain following radar

i hate to quote from wikipedia, but it's convenient in this case
"In response to the missile threat, military planners switched to low-altitude penetration."

"this exact problem had actually occurred with the B-58, another high-speed aircraft that was forced into the low-level role to avoid missile defenses"

the U2 incident taught us you can't outfly a SAM

the Valkyrie was cancelled because they realized high-speed high-altitude penetration got you killed (and this was a plane that would have flown higher and faster than the F-22)

Also, with the F-22 signature management it isn't practical to place EW sites close enough to close all the gaps.

good thing our enemies are always practical


Why give up the fuel efficiency and speed when you don't have to?

you wouldn't

but you seem to completely ignore even the possibility that there might be situations where you do have to



The comments aren't petty. If you are offended I apologize but this is how the real world works. I talk about things as they are in real life. Thats often going to be in stark contrast to what you read on the internet.

:onfloorl:

thank you for continuing to demonstrate your pettiness

but fret not about my feelings, i find your antics amusing

Admin: Read the forum rules about engagement behaviour. Warning issued.

[gf0012-aust]

Time for everyone to settle down a bit.....

[guppy]

How can you say you don't recall the F-35 having 14 AAMs when the link that you gave which is this one: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8351.html already proves the F-35 will carry 14 AAMs. The F-35 will be an outstanding air to air fighter which is why the Pentagon and the GOA support the F-35 over more F-22s.

Both American and international F-35s will having this capability if they really need to load up the F-35 though 4, 6, or 8 AAMs will be the most common air to air load out in combat but they will still have the option to carry 14 AAMs if it is needed.

F-15,

Firstly, I did not say that the F-35 will not be an outstanding air to air fighter. In fact, I said that it would need to be able to hold its own as the USN will be depending on it. Secondly, the link does not prove anything especially in aircraft development. There was an initial requirement to qualify the air to ground ejectors with ASRAAMs, but that has been temporarily shelved. The question is why? My answer would be certification priority, schedule risk, and technical risk. The technical risk is quite apparent because LM will rather spend money to develop a LO missile launcher.

Then the next point would be that having a "dirty" air to air configuration will be counter productive especially againt Flanker type threats. You need to delay threat acquisition for as long as you can. 10 missiles hanging on the wings will not achieve that. Plus the dual missile launchers, have they been developed yet?

Thus, logically, I don't see why a 14 missile configuration would have any sort of priority. If there is really a need to improve its air to air capability, they would focus on putting more missiles internally.

cheers

guppy

[F-15 Eagle]

F-15,

Firstly, I did not say that the F-35 will not be an outstanding air to air fighter. In fact, I said that it would need to be able to hold its own as the USN will be depending on it. Secondly, the link does not prove anything especially in aircraft development. There was an initial requirement to qualify the air to ground ejectors with ASRAAMs, but that has been temporarily shelved. The question is why? My answer would be certification priority, schedule risk, and technical risk. The technical risk is quite apparent because LM will rather spend money to develop a LO missile launcher.

Then the next point would be that having a "dirty" air to air configuration will be counter productive especially againt Flanker type threats. You need to delay threat acquisition for as long as you can. 10 missiles hanging on the wings will not achieve that. Plus the dual missile launchers, have they been developed yet?

Thus, logically, I don't see why a 14 missile configuration would have any sort of priority. If there is really a need to improve its air to air capability, they would focus on putting more missiles internally.

cheers

guppy

1. Not only the USN but also the USAF will rely on the F-35A for air to air conmbat to serve with the F-22 and Super Hornet in air combat.
2. The U.S. F-35s don't even use the ASRAAMs anyway, only AMRAAMs and AIM-9s.
3. The F-35 already has the ability to carry 14 AAMs, the link already proved that and it doeas not matter what you may think of it because the F-35 can still cary 14 AAMs whether or not it will ever need to.
4. Only the British F-35s have not been certified to carry 4 internal ASRAAMs on the ground lauchers but the American F-35s can still carry 4 internal AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs. So in the American F-35s the air to ground ejectors will carry AMRAAMs or AIM-9s just not the British F-35s, manly because America will rely on the F-35 for air to air combat like the F-22 but the British will not.

[DarthAmerica]

there was 0 display of maintaining kinetic energy there. In fact, it was pretty much the exact opposite. It was low and slow (certainly under sound barrier) because it was an air show.

What it shows is that large fighter carrying lots of fuel have more options especially in an energy fight.



do you understand how Meteor works? serious question

if you don't, you can look it up

I've discussed that missile 100 times. I'm quite familiar. Unfortunately that missile is neither in service or equipping threat airforces so in the context of the F-22/35 it's not relevant unless we are talking about future F-35 weapons. We weren't so I ignored it.


and if you already have 99% kill probability as is, why expose yourself to more danger? just shoot and scoot

yes there are limitations, but on the other hand the Raptor doesn't render them useless either which is what you were implying

99% is highly unlikely for any missile. A single failure to launch 1 in 100 times would invalidate that. Again I'm talking about the real world. I haven't seen any weapon yield 99% kill probability.

That's the thing, which is why I posted the RAAF pilots experience for you, a properly flown Raptor does make legacy aircraft and weapons useless. It was built for that purpose.



but i was talking about the Meteor where this clearly isn't the case

i understand missile design has progressed. do you?

I do, and no threat missiles have those characteristics and not even meteor before 2012 at the earliest.



you're flat out wrong on this

let us examine A2A since 1991
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_302.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml

what do we see?
7 AMRAAMs and a ton of sidewinders

now let's look at some of those AMRAAM kills:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept2004/0904aces.asp

Did you miss all the AIM-7 entries?



in fact the most recent kill was within extremely close range when the spy plane played bumper cars with the chinese fighter

I'm not talking about peacetime ferret games. I'm talking about war.




if you can get an optical zoom good enough for a positive ID, you're WVR

which also isn't fully trusted which is why the RoE still usually specify a visual ID regardless of what the NCTR thinks it is

Not in wartime. NCTR and BVR rule the day now. Also, optical sensors have ID'd threats at tens of km. That isn't WVR. WVR=eyeball range.



well if you read the sales brochure for the Meteor you would realize that it is fed targetting data for the expected interception point before launch and it can receive live targetting updates via datalink from either the launching aircraft or an AWACS


Nothing new about that. All BVR AAMs have to do this in some form since they have much smaller seekers.


never mind that you are once again trying to change the subject which was:
if you are WVR of a plane, you are almost certainly within the no-escape zone of a Meteor no matter the kinetic situation (within reason)

And there you have it. Within reason. Those missiles were designed to go after legacy fighters that fly within certain parameters. The F-22's typical flight profile exceeds the extreme flight profiles of legacy fighters and their weapons.



afraid of what you'll find?
basically they're all mach 2.5+ class aircraft with a 60,000+ service ceiling
the F-22 may be slightly better, but not dramatically so

Not worth my time. I know those other aircraft are not M2.5+/60,000ft capable in operational configuration except for the Migs.

1. and if you looked at modern mach 5+ missiles you would realize that manoueverability means squat

How do they maintain M5+?

2. what's with the subject change yet again? the claim was that the F-22 could launch missiles so much higher and faster than any competitor, that it could stay outside the engagement zone of any other fighter

this clearly isn't the case

lol...you read an example:confused:

thus the discussion was about the energy advantage associated with a fast and high launch not the manoueverability of a plane in such a position

yet another deflection

No a misunderstanding is more likely.


getting back to the point, what was your point about the MiG-25 and the Raven?

Those Ravens were surprised by the Mig which used its speed to compress time. It mission killed all of them which caused casualties. Then it escaped the F-15 CAP/SWEEP via its speed.

Stealth is not technology, its tactics. Stealth has been around long before men knew how to fly.




then explain the evolution of the B-1

original B-1 was Mach2+ and flew at altitude
B-1B was subsonic and had terrain following radar

You are comparing penetrating unescorted strategic bombers to a stealth supersonic fighter? Apples and oranges.

i hate to quote from wikipedia, but it's convenient in this case
"In response to the missile threat, military planners switched to low-altitude penetration."

"this exact problem had actually occurred with the B-58, another high-speed aircraft that was forced into the low-level role to avoid missile defenses"

the U2 incident taught us you can't outfly a SAM

the Valkyrie was cancelled because they realized high-speed high-altitude penetration got you killed (and this was a plane that would have flown higher and faster than the F-22)

Again, different flight profiles, roles and neither is stealthy. They also fly unescorted with no weapons for self defense.



good thing our enemies are always practical

"You have to pay to play". IADS are expensive and there is a lot of airspace to cover.


-DA

[stigmata]

I'd just like to mention that AIM-7 sparrow had Pk ~80% stat, yet in real world it had ~10% Pk
AMRAAM has Pk ~90% stat, so perhaps real world is ~20%

I guess the reason is the testing is on subsonic drones

[gf0012-aust]

I'd just like to mention that AIM-7 sparrow had Pk ~80% stat, yet in real world it had ~10% Pk
AMRAAM has Pk ~90% stat, so perhaps real world is ~20%

I guess the reason is the testing is on subsonic drones

supporting data for this claim is where? there are 7 variables for determining PK. target speed is only one of them.

I'd be interested to know where the claims on subsonic drones are considering that supersonic kills are also part of the eval in trials. ie a breakdown of the test data will show subsonic drones, supersonic drones/QF's, combat. release to kill ratios etc.....

You do realise that these PK kills in combat are gathered on missiles released and targets downed in combat? It's got nothing to do with trials. So the AICG figures represent real events, combat kills - not test events.

[not_so_sis]

DARTH AMERICA is correct on current and future fighter engagement principles being BVR (or how any attacking pilot would prefer anyway) making the F22 a great tool, taking on so many aircraft at once is fantastic, however it cannot defy its existance and be in more than one place at a time, however the F35 can.. (if you get what I mean)

[stigmata]

the F22 a great tool, taking on so many aircraft at once is fantastic, however it cannot defy its existance and be in more than one place at a time, however the F35 can.. (if you get what I mean) I think i know what you mean, but i dont think you will have sufficient F35 to block every entry of attacking aircraft, high speed is crucial to intercept them if you dont happen to incidentally be loitering around there at that moment. Tu-22M is really hard to intercept before it launches its missiles, and is nigh impossible to chase down.

[Sea Toby]

Our northern border with Canada is what, say some 3,000 miles. Top speed at a high altitude of a Raptor is only what, 200 more mph. One Raptor will take three hours to fly from the west coast to the east coast. Both aircraft's combat range is what, 600 miles. Both fighters can fly very fast at top speed, some 1200-1400 mph for how long, less than a half an hour before it has to turn around to reach its home base. More fighters equals less holes, and smaller holes. So which do you want, a bit more speed or more fighters?

Isn't if funny those who prefer speed prefer to use Mach terms, not speed in mph? Mach 2.0 sounds faster than Mach 1.8, but its only a hundred or so mph more. 1200 mph or 1350 mph sounds less impressive, don't it?

[not_so_sis]

talking in mph is a far better way to appreciate the speed, it also reminds you of the pilots safety net being the fact he/she can eject, so in a circumstance where the pilot is going to have to fight at a closer range with possibilities of being locked up perhaps said pilot (su22) flew directly into a trap, then you do not want to be travelling too fast as you might as well pull an explode helmet cord rather than ejecting. Meaning speed is great, but it cannot be relied upon, too heavily, you may end up flying said fast towards the enemy. Hopefully at different alt with lots of cloud between you and without being noticed. however there are a million and 1 scenarios, speed does not mean inpenetrable. As Sea harriers proved fighting the faster argentines.
By the way, the F22 really is on a completely different level to an su22 and im sure the face on a russian pilot briefed to fly and fire even at bvm at one would be rather discomposed.

[stigmata]

Isn't if funny those who prefer speed prefer to use Mach terms, not speed in mph? Mach 2.0 sounds faster than Mach 1.8, but its only a hundred or so mph more. 1200 mph or 1350 mph sounds less impressive, don't it? Not that i ever mentioned Mach terms, or even afterburn, because i concider afterburn an act of desperation. Allthough i agree you desperately need to intercept a Tu-22M before it launches its missiles, it really is much preferable if you dont have to resort to afterburn.

The reason is simple, an aircraft burn 4-5 times as much fuel at afterburn as it does at military, just a few minutes at afterburn and the fighter have to retire, meaning it is useless for any practical purpose. The bomber only have to make a circle while the fighter limp back to base after the desperate afterburn.
If we instead look at the speed in mph at the several times more economical military speed, we find that F35 has a military speed of around 670 mph to intercept, while F22 has a military speed of 1260 mph.
670 mph vs 1260 mph sounds less impressive, does'nt it ?

[not_so_sis]

dependant upon arnament and fuel try 1050mph cruise speed for an F35.

[stigmata]

dependant upon arnament and fuel try 1050mph cruise speed for an F35.Thats M.1.4 in my book, so i dont want to try that, no matter what engine upgrade, humidity/pressure/temperature. No matter what humidity/pressure/temperature, F22 is just about twice as fast as F35 at dry thrust.

[not_so_sis]

f22 cruise speed is Mach 1.5 = 1140 mph ish
f35 cruise speed is Mach 1.3 ish = 1050mph

Where has the twice as fast come from?
Would involved countries pay so much for a plane that cruises at 600 mph.... really?

[stigmata]

errm, would you like to give me a link to f35 cruise speed is Mach 1.3 ish = 1050mph ?

ps, to answer your question, as far as battlefield interdiction aircraft goes, i cant think of anything better, and there isn't a whole lot of new fighters to choose from.

[not_so_sis]

http://www.aviationtrivia.info/F-35-Lightning-II.php

obviously there is no real solid figure yet.

[F-15 Eagle]

Since when does the F-35 have supercruise?

[stigmata]

Lockheed Martin has publicly declared F-35 is subsonic at dry thrust, i can't find any link for it at the moment though.

[not_so_sis]

ok. If you find a link just drop it on here.

[Sintra]

f22 cruise speed is Mach 1.5 = 1140 mph ish
f35 cruise speed is Mach 1.3 ish = 1050mph

Where has the twice as fast come from?
Would involved countries pay so much for a plane that cruises at 600 mph.... really?

OH my...

"Mach 1.3" Cruise Speed for the F-35A?!

Design cruising speed, also known as the optimum cruise speed, is the most efficient speed in terms of distance, speed and fuel usage.

That "600 mph" will be a LOT closer to reality.

And if you were talking about the ability of an aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds without using re-heat the concept it´s caled "Supercruise". And no, an F-35A wont be capable of Mach 1.3 on Dry Thrust.
But we do have a "quotable" number, that´s Mach 1.05 without afterburner for the F-35A.
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2430121.ece

[not_so_sis]

could you show me an article on how it will not super cruise?

[Sintra]

could you show me an article on how it will not super cruise?

I just did, but the simple fact that the F-35A was NEVER meant to have THAT capability (Mach 1.3 supercruise) should count for something.
That aircraft was never meant to be a supercruiser, high energy ATA fighter, that´s the RAPTOR, but to be capable of long range penetration and/or high "tempo" loitering CAS.
It has a massive internal fuel fraction with the correspondent fuselage generated drag, a wing sweep angle identical to the one of the A-7 Corsair and fixed air intakes optimized for low RCS and high subsonic speed...
That´s a very, very, very advanced fighter bomber, a highly lethal oponent both in ATG or ATA, BUT it´s not a high speed interceptor.

I do think that RJ Mitchell (the guy who invented the Spitfire) once said something like this: "a fighter his all engine and no fuel, a bomber his all fuel and no engine". And the JSF has a massive fuel fraction... (and a bloody BIG engine)

Cheers

[not_so_sis]

also depends what countries version you get!! oh dear.

[Sintra]

also depends what countries version you get!! oh dear.

Countries Version?!

Are you refering to the A/B/C versions of the basic JSF/F-35 (they do have diferences in speed) or to something else?

[not_so_sis]

no in the fact that there are differences between countries in configurations, parts all kinds of things. like RAF and Royal navy having weaponry on wings aswell as in the bay.

[Sintra]

no in the fact that there are differences between countries in configurations, parts all kinds of things. like RAF and Royal navy having weaponry on wings aswell as in the bay.

Oh, I see.
Any version (A/B/C) and any country who operates the F-35 will have the option to use weapons on the wings pylons. But there might be diferent configurations if any country asks for some specific adition (something about CFT´s and Israel, by example, or the external AIM-132 pylons for the british) but i have the feeling that almost "everybody and its dog" will "piggyback" the Pentagon funded upgrades (the "funded" part it´s the essential part :D)

Cheers