The reason is to meet a specialised threat, in numbers. You don't send a boxer to a wrestling ring. You simply don't need that sort of dedicated role in any sort of the same way that it once existed. That has been the case ever since technology started to move from the capabilities of the plane to move and perform all sorts of fancy tricks, to the capabilities of Radar and the tech supporting it. It makes no difference whether your commadore 64 is in a shed or your living room.Originally Posted by Chogy
And this anology applies how? If your saying that the F-35 is useless compared to the F-22, you should perhaps go tell the Royal Navy to go scrap their aircraft carriers because they can't enter a high threat environment.In 1991, the F-16 community in GW1 was livid that they were given no dedicated air to air missions. They certainly could defend themselves, and their may have been instances where they "swung" after dropping their bombs, but the CAPS and SWEEPS were given to the F-15, partially for reasons that cannot be publicly discussed.
Im really looking foward to red flag. The F-22 is no more able to detect a F-35, than an AESA equipped superbug. Whats more - the F-35 hasn't even taken on the Air to Air role yet, so lets drop the relitive superiority of unknown systems. The F-35 is effectively an airborne AEGIS. If the F-22 can't find it within 15nm, it's as good as useless in the context of engagements. Period. If the F-22 can't find it, well obviously others will have just as hard a time. If it's WVR, chances are the F-35 will wax it because of it's all aspect integrated tracking systems... which the F-22 does not have.Along those lines, the F-35 cannot hold a candle to the F-22 in an air to air role.
In any which case neither system has likely comparable foe existent yet, so why waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a 20 year old concept which can only pitch, it can't bat, it can't field, and it isn't an integrated team player.
Never said that. But the WAB argument is predictable. The Raptor is the top of the line, therefor the argument is you must have the best of the apparent best. The best in this case only links up to a very few specific cases, for which the argument is overkill. The main argument is a numbers game, and only a numbers game, reliant on disregarding the spectrum of the USAF/USN/US Army/USMC arsenal of capabilities, whilst making unsubstantiated claims about capabilities of an aircraft that isn't operational yet.Do you really think we on WAB know all there is about the Raptor? Its capabilities?
Cheaper does not mean inferior.I have been out of the game for many years, but my wife was one of the managers of the F-22 program in her time at Lockheed, and had clearances I could only dream about. She came home one day grinning like the Cheshire Cat, (she had been fully briefed), and all she would do is laugh, and said (knowing my own background) "Your head would explode if you knew what this thing can do. Unbelievable." She was also intimately familiar with the F-35. There is a reason the F-35 is cheaper, and it has only partially to do with economies of scale.
Actually AFAIK after considerable stink from the British, tech access been "Resolved". AFAIK Australia did the same, didn't get the same access but got a lot more access. BAE North America and BAE Europe are two completely different entities because of tech and political issues, but this is tech access for a level 1 partner.Technology was NOT fully shared due to expense, unit cost, and international sales issues.
The F-22 is porkulus, and the attachment to it is more often than not unsubstantiated fanboi material that relies on basic misinterpretation of tactical realities. No nation state will be sending an airforce to attack the continental U.S. It will be protecting U.S Interests. Forthcomming doom without increased numbers of F-22, which is essentially what the primary argument is, does nothing to help the pentagon's bottom line, and serves primarily as worforce welfare. The House committee should have their links scrutinised, as well as full disclosure of pecunary interests. If they have links, they should damn well do the honorable thing, expected of most committees that have some sort of self respect, and abstain from voting. Until then, why don't they do something useful and recognise that the F-22 is what it is, a very expensive fighter, that in it's cradle to grave lifecycle, has extrapolating costs associated with it's operation, and that to meet bare production necessities, if it is to maintain itself as the "only fighter" capable of "dominating" oponents, it will need 10's of billions of dollars just to maintain base procurement schedules. That means something needs to give.Before you unleash "porkulus" and "fanboy", my wife no longer works for Lockheed. We do not profit from the F-22 beyond its ability to guard the nation we love.
The contest for the funding pie invariably means the longer this saga goes on, the less likely the F-22 will be of political appeal.
I think it's best if we keep it because of the other potential threats being Iran, where they have Mig-29's which are almost equally capable as our F-16's. And China with the crazy stuff they have (though their high tech is in low numbers). Right now though, USA wars are not about "If we can win battles or not." it's "How many men can we lose?"
Nobody is arguing to scrap it; the argument is a cost/capability one. Keep & maintain the ones you have; heck order another one to replace the one that got crashed. Do the neccessary & complex math that is needed to be done to sustain the existing fleet. But realise it is a tech orphan. These arn't 737's. You need to graphically learn from that process - which in part was already thought out as a substancial problem 9 or so years ago by the people who designed & are building the F-35 and people in the USAF with marked experience from the B2 program...
The practical example of that is the number of integrated systems going into the F-35 and targetting systems that are responces in themselves to passive aquisition/launch developments. The capability of which, just like the f-22, are somewhat classified, and being bagged when it hasn't even been tested operationally yet.
Once the line is shutdown its gone, the USAF has to buy what it needs now.
No they are not, they bring a level of capability to the fight the F-35 does not. The F-35 is a strike fighter but if its carrying a militarily useful bomb load its not fast, maneuverable or stealthy. Sure it can drop its bombs to get those things back, but if those bombs are not dropping on the target then the mission is a waste. The F-22 can kick the door open against any air defense and fighter assets, can coordinate the air battle when an AWACs can't get close enough or is at too much risk ect.Do the neccessary & complex math that is needed to be done to sustain the existing fleet. But realise it is a tech orphan.
The F-35 is not designed to dominate the skies, the F-22 is.These arn't 737's. You need to graphically learn from that process - which in part was already thought out as a substancial problem 9 or so years ago by the people who designed & are building the F-35 and people in the USAF with marked experience from the B2 program...
An F-35 with a usable bomb load has to come in low or ground based radars can see it. If the GPS system is jammed the F-35 is going to need TFR and there goes its stealth. This limits situational awereness and stealth . An F-22 can sit high and see all with its LPI radar and keep the strike package safe and on target.The practical example of that is the number of integrated systems going into the F-35 and targetting systems that are responces in themselves to passive aquisition/launch developments. The capability of which, just like the f-22, are somewhat classified, and being bagged when it hasn't even been tested operationally yet.
I'm sorry, Chunder but since when in all of military history that we have NOT sought overkill?
Chimo
overkill=deterrence=less war
I'm pretty sure if your planing a war against the US, that a stealth AS fighter that can take down 16 of the next best thing by itself on equal skill level and keep on trucking will make your plans for war go south real fast.
Especially when the next best thing (F-15)*16= 480 million dollars, when an F-22 costs only about a quarter as much.
Like heaps of other lines. Plan for its replacement. Otherwise your speculating on a speculation. Buy heaps of Fighters, incase x Happens, in x Magnitude, 5,10,20 years from now. You need detailed plans to buy what you need before the inevitable happens from a maintenance perspective.
Thats not true. The F-117 Carried a military useful bomb load, and that was before SDB's were available, WITH increased targetting options.No they are not, they bring a level of capability to the fight the F-35 does not. The F-35 is a strike fighter but if its carrying a militarily useful bomb load its not fast, maneuverable or stealthy.
a) Militarily usefulbomb load has decreased markedly since vietnam as targetting ability has gone up. It rare even for a Strike Eagle to max out it's load.
b) The F-35 is just as fast in real world scenarios. Regardless, the power to weight ratio is a distraction, supercruising uses fuel attrociously. The sooner people realise that, the better.
c) You don't need to be mauverable past the 12 G mark. Period. What matters is all aspect situational awareness, targetting & engagement ability of both launch platforms, and inbound missiles.
The F-35 is designed with this in mind, has things like EOTS onboard jamming, etc + it is networked in with other platforms. The F-22 is Not. The F-22 Is an entity unto itself.
Who is saying the F-35 can't drop a bomb on the target? Gee your really giving a lot of credit to a system that hasn't even been tested operationally yet. The F-22 is a fighter with a secondary bomb mission attached.Sure it can drop its bombs to get those things back, but if those bombs are not dropping on the target then the mission is a waste.
The F-22 cannot target systems it does not know are there. It doesn't have the electronic suite to do so. The F-35 on the other hand, can find them with it's own systems, or those that are networked into it. Networks the F-22 does not have. Moreover, it can do it as they emerge, in real time reality like Kosovo demonstrated, whereas the F-22 can not.The F-22 can kick the door open against any air defense and fighter assets,
SO can other platforms, and of course, the F-35 will be able to do so. The rest of the western world is not getting F-35's, because they cannot target air threats. Look at the development of the F-16.can coordinate the air battle when an AWACs can't get close enough or is at too much risk ect.
No, the F-35 is NOT designed with a powerful air to air engagement suite integrated into it for a couple of reasons. One is initial cost, another is So the F-35's can start rolling off the production line. It's system architecture is designed 'For but not with'. Much like the F-22's architecture was designed For Air to Air Combat, and the headaches and problems they have had trying to integrate ground attack into it, that many seem to overlook. The F-22's bombload, was an afterthought. It's targetting systems reflect that.The F-35 is not designed to dominate the skies, the F-22 is.
Thats not true. Bombs, ARM's can be stored internally. It can also carry an effectivr warload internally GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb / Small Smart BombAn F-35 with a usable bomb load has to come in low or ground based radars can see it.
Terrain Following Radar was killed in The first Gulf War. Ask the British.If the GPS system is jammed the F-35 is going to need TFR and there goes its stealth.
The F-35 will be linked in with more airborne assets than the F-22 is.This limits situational awereness and stealth
The F-22's Radar cannot see all. Far from it. Further unlike the F-35, it can't track passive homing systems. Because of this, it will be of only support use at best if the shit hits the fan.An F-22 can sit high and see all with its LPI radar and keep the strike package safe and on target.
Last edited by Chunder; 05 Jul 09, at 08:51.
Sought Overkill?
The U.S already has Overkill.
Which in the context of the current climate, a number of Big aquisition cookies due for payment & upcomming costs, with 3000 Odd F-35's being one of them, another 100 tankers in the near term with another 80 on the turn of the next decade, has to be budgetted for otherwise some services will have to be severely cut.
In short it's going to cost more than procurement cost for any like system that existed during the cold war, & even then, you want more.
So sought often comes up hard agaisnt the wall of reality.
Im sorry, that doesn't stack up. In The Gulf war, Iraq had an overkill of men. In Vietnam, the U.S had an Overkill of airpower. In Korea, the Communists had an overkill of men. In the Cold war the USSR had an overkill of a lot of equipment. none of which has ultimate bearing of the outcome of the fight.
The writing is on the wall for the F-22, the USAF knows what it can do effectively, and knows what it cannot do effectively (and so does btw sec def Gates), and that shapes it's input into newer tech programs like the F-35.
Its better to have a tool and not need it, than need it and not have it. The simple fact is once that line shuts down its gone and the skill set that made the F-22 goes with it and you literally have to re-invent the wheel if say the PRC or Russia ever gets a true 5th gen flying.
The F-35 didn't do CAS, the F-35 will have to. The F-117 was designed to operate alone in hitting hi-val targets, the F-35 will need tob e able to operate in contested skies at high noon. If it can't drop its bombs on target, its a failure.Thats not true. The F-117 Carried a military useful bomb load, and that was before SDB's were available, WITH increased targetting options.
I am not talking about a max load out, I am talking enough fire to provide cover for troops, do SEAD work, or hit what ever target gets assigned it. Unless the US wants to surrender the daylight hours the F-35 has to fight its way in and out unless another platform does that fighting for it.a) Militarily usefulbomb load has decreased markedly since vietnam as targetting ability has gone up. It rare even for a Strike Eagle to max out it's load.
The F-35 is not just as fast in real world situations. In the real world the F-22 will be high in thinner air than the F-35 coming in low. Supercruise is mighty useful once its time to kill things. it lets the F-22 cover more airspace for a longer period of time than an F-15 using burner.b) The F-35 is just as fast in real world scenarios. Regardless, the power to weight ratio is a distraction, supercruising uses fuel attrociously. The sooner people realise that, the better.
The F-22 is perhaps the best passive flying airborne sensor in the world.c) You don't need to be mauverable past the 12 G mark. Period. What matters is all aspect situational awareness, targetting & engagement ability of both launch platforms, and inbound missiles.
The F-35 is designed with this in mind, has things like EOTS onboard jamming, etc + it is networked in with other platforms. The F-22 is Not. The F-22 Is an entity unto itself.
the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume. The fighter's stealth is also of little use if it has to close to visual range in order to identify its targets. Passive search and track and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) are not luxuries for a stealthy air-superiority fighter.
The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system. The fighter also has two datalink systems: one using the standard VHF/UHF radio frequencies and the other, the intraflight datalink (IFDL), a low-power LPI link which connects two or more F-22s at close range. The sensors are apertures connected to the fighter's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) banks in the forward fuselage.
The data from the APG-77, ALR-94 and the datalinks are correlated according to their azimuth, elevation and range. Data is combined into a track file, and the final target picture is obtained by choosing the read-out from the most accurate sensor. For example, the passive system may provide the best azimuth data, while the radar produces the most accurate range.
CIP software controls the APG-77 according to emission-control principles. The radar's signals are managed in intensity, duration and space to maintain the pilot's situational awareness while minimizing the chance that its signals will be intercepted. More distant targets get less radar attention; as they get closer to the F-22, they will be identified and prioritized; and when they are close enough to be engaged or avoided, they are continuously tracked.
Sensor fusion and emission control are closely linked. The more the datalinks and ALR-94 can be used to build and update the tactical picture, the less the system needs to use the radar. The IFDL provides another layer of protection against tracking, because any one F-22 in a flight can provide radar data to the others.
The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewt...8-start-0.html
If the F-35 has to drop its bombs somewhere other than the target in order to defend itself its a miss. Like I said earlier unless the US wants to abandone the day to the bad guys air to air has to be done and won. Either the F-35 can do and risk being overmatched in the near future, or a dedicated fighter platform can do it.Who is saying the F-35 can't drop a bomb on the target? Gee your really giving a lot of credit to a system that hasn't even been tested operationally yet. The F-22 is a fighter with a secondary bomb mission attached.
See above, if it emits the F-22 can sniff it out.The F-22 cannot target systems it does not know are there. It doesn't have the electronic suite to do so.
again see above the F-22 has 2 separate datalink options. Your info on the F-22 is dead wrong.The F-35 on the other hand, can find them with it's own systems, or those that are networked into it. Networks the F-22 does not have.
Hey I agree with that. The U.S can also afford it, but a little bit of moderation sure would help. Not anti F-22, anti more F-22's is more like it.
Not sure what this means? It can perform both though quite aptly. The nore numbers deployed, the better - numbers that can be deployed with far more flexibility than a F-22 wing.The F-35 didn't do CAS, the F-35 will have to.
Why can't the F-35 hit high value targets?The F-117 was designed to operate alone in hitting hi-val targets, the F-35 will need tob e able to operate in contested skies at high noon. If it can't drop its bombs on target, its a failure.
Why can't the U.S Navy hit high Value Targets?
Why can't B-52's/B1's hit high value targets?
Where did that B2 go?
Why is it that the F-22 will be able to do it, butthe F-35 won't be able to do it?
We've established that The F-35 can carry an adequate bomb load, that it has more information at it's fingertips to find that target, that it has greater situational awareness, and that Terrain following Radar as a concept has been considerably dead ever since lookdown/shootdown radar came into existence, and CIWS defence systems came into existence.
Why can't the F-35 fight it's way in. It has the ability just like the F-22 to engage with superior situational awareness, and third party targetting. It has the ability to update flight plans enroute and use data from other platforms.I am not talking about a max load out, I am talking enough fire to provide cover for troops, do SEAD work, or hit what ever target gets assigned it. Unless the US wants to surrender the daylight hours the F-35 has to fight its way in and out unless another platform does that fighting for it.
One F-35 is not enough to take on the world. Even F-22's operate in groups of up to 4, little operational difference there to F-15's in GW1. I would HATE to be a flanker pilot looking for 4 F-35's and not knowing even where to look.
Thats correct, it's faster. It can properly identify and track targets behind and below it...The F-35 is not just as fast in real world situations.
There is a lot of misconception about the use of supercruise. But, since when did the F-35 not have the ability?In the real world the F-22 will be high in thinner air than the F-35 coming in low. Supercruise is mighty useful once its time to kill things. it lets the F-22 cover more airspace for a longer period of time than an F-15 using burner.
The EP-3C is.The F-22 is perhaps the best passive flying airborne sensor in the world.
The F-35 has more passive systems, ability to use the date from othe aircraft as if it were it's own & more.
Thats a lot of technobabble, way over the top of my head. But the F-35 is networked into more systems and has full spherical SA. The F-22 does not.the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume. The fighter's stealth is also of little use if it has to close to visual range in order to identify its targets. Passive search and track and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) are not luxuries for a stealthy air-superiority fighter.
The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system. The fighter also has two datalink systems: one using the standard VHF/UHF radio frequencies and the other, the intraflight datalink (IFDL), a low-power LPI link which connects two or more F-22s at close range. The sensors are apertures connected to the fighter's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) banks in the forward fuselage.
The data from the APG-77, ALR-94 and the datalinks are correlated according to their azimuth, elevation and range. Data is combined into a track file, and the final target picture is obtained by choosing the read-out from the most accurate sensor. For example, the passive system may provide the best azimuth data, while the radar produces the most accurate range.
CIP software controls the APG-77 according to emission-control principles. The radar's signals are managed in intensity, duration and space to maintain the pilot's situational awareness while minimizing the chance that its signals will be intercepted. More distant targets get less radar attention; as they get closer to the F-22, they will be identified and prioritized; and when they are close enough to be engaged or avoided, they are continuously tracked.
Sensor fusion and emission control are closely linked. The more the datalinks and ALR-94 can be used to build and update the tactical picture, the less the system needs to use the radar. The IFDL provides another layer of protection against tracking, because any one F-22 in a flight can provide radar data to the others.
The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewt...8-start-0.html
The F-35 barely even has to manauver. Let alone drop it's bombs if detectected. Far from it, EOTS actually encourages it doing nothing.If the F-35 has to drop its bombs somewhere other than the target in order to defend itself its a miss
So now the F-35 is inferior?Like I said earlier unless the US wants to abandone the day to the bad guys air to air has to be done and won. Either the F-35 can do and risk being overmatched in the near future, or a dedicated fighter platform can do it.
No country in the world has perfected stealth technology better than the USA.
No country has more expereience in operational doctrine & use of stealth craft than the USA.
No country even has a flying, let alone prototyped example using even simple signature reduction, that is ever likely to be a serious contender.
The U.S However is on it's 4th operational stealth system.
Whilst the public still continues to have wet dreams over the world stealth, the U.S has been able to test its tech and theory, WELL INTO the 21'st century and evolve from 5th generation fighters to 6th generation systems. The F-22 has 5th gen.
It doesn't even have to emit for the F-35 to sniff it out...See above, if it emits the F-22 can sniff it out.
No it's not. At least, As far as i am aware it's factual.again see above the F-22 has 2 separate datalink options. Your info on the F-22 is dead wrong.
To my mind the question here is not whether more F-22s would be money well spent. I think it would be. However, and this is a big sticking point, this morning when I woke up and turned on the news the lead story was "US defecit Tops 1 Trillion". I think all of us can agree that the US govt. has gotten itself into some pretty dire financial straights. Some hard decisions need to be made and I think that probably the way that the US govt. does business needs to be reexamined. In the current situation, I think the primary concern is to look at the USAF fleet 15-20 years down the road. In that time frame what concerns me the most is the ability of the USAF to replace the retiring F-15s and F-16s in sufficient numbers. I think this is a very serious concern given the recent history of Pentagon procurement. If limiting the fleet of very capable F-22s today means that down the road the USAF will be able to buy the F-35 in the numbers it will need, then I think its a compromise that needs to be made. I am concerned that what happened to the B-2 and F-22 will happen to the F-35 and that the USAF will shrink to the point where real threats emerge. Steps need to be taken today to ensure that they are bought in quantities needed to ensure USAF dominance in the future. if that happens at the expense of the F-22 its a shame, but I can understand why. It is a gamble that the F-35 will prove itself capable and reliable and that the clowns who run the country will allow enough if them to be built, but I can't see a better solution.
Isnt it so clear that F-22 is stealthier then F-35, has bigger radome, more maneuverable, fly faster, higher. And so absolutely a better choice (or the best choice) for A2A role. As for the number, an official has said 187 is enough for one major conflict. Assume its true, but doesnt that your doctrine call for capability to simultaneously fight 2 wars?
Anyway, if you'd stopped buying japan and german cars, chinese clothes and toys and every others stuffs, you could have bought as many F-22 as you want.
Last edited by drhuy; 14 Jul 09, at 18:01.
There is a set requirement given by USAF analysis. The current number does not meet that requirement and is considered high risk. Risking the loss of air superiority or the success of offensive air operations is not proper moderation. It is gambling with lives.
They will have enormous difficulty dealing with new generation Russian integrated air defenses and fighters. Russia is proliferating these systems around the world.Why can't the F-35 hit high value targets?
Why can't the U.S Navy hit high Value Targets?
Why can't B-52's/B1's hit high value targets?
There are only 20 of them.Where did that B2 go?
Better all aspect stealth, and supercruise are the most fundamental advantages.Why is it that the F-22 will be able to do it, butthe F-35 won't be able to do it?
We have not. The situational awareness depends heavily on radar systems, and the F-22 has a bigger radar antenna with potential for additional side scan arrays. Also, there is insufficient public information regarding the detailed capabilities of the passive EW sensors on the F-22 to state whether the F-35's system is better. In fact, the Israeli and the Japanese air forces' desire to acquire F22s despite the availability of the F-35 speaks volumes about their relative capabilities....that it has more information at it's fingertips to find that target, that it has greater situational awareness.
The F-35 has better display systems and EO capabilities, but that does not equate better situational awareness in the pertinent regimes.
Air combat is not a checklist and capabilities are not binary. This "analysis" is ridiculously simplified.Why can't the F-35 fight it's way in. It has the ability just like the F-22 to engage with superior situational awareness, and third party targetting. It has the ability to update flight plans enroute and use data from other platforms.
The Flanker will not be alone. US aircraft are expected to penetrate into enemy territory.One F-35 is not enough to take on the world. Even F-22's operate in groups of up to 4, little operational difference there to F-15's in GW1. I would HATE to be a flanker pilot looking for 4 F-35's and not knowing even where to look.
By that time it will be within lethal range of an advanced integrated air defense system.Thats correct, it's faster. It can properly identify and track targets behind and below it...
It has never had that capability and was never designed to.There is a lot of misconception about the use of supercruise. But, since when did the F-35 not have the ability?
You are far too believing of the Lockheed marketing material. Your analysis is incredibly naive because you've reduced a complex air combat picture into a checklist.The F-35 has more passive systems, ability to use the date from othe aircraft as if it were it's own & more.
Thats a lot of technobabble, way over the top of my head. But the F-35 is networked into more systems and has full spherical SA. The F-22 does not.
The F-35 barely even has to manauver. Let alone drop it's bombs if detectected. Far from it, EOTS actually encourages it doing nothing.
The US likes to play offense and the F-22 is an offensive capability. As such its level of stealth and its level of operational maturity is necessary to save US lives.No country in the world has perfected stealth technology better than the USA........
The F-35 has superior passive IR capabilities. This requires the aircraft to be within lethal detection and killing range of new generation integrated air defenses. There will be ways to compensate, but the lack of adequate numbers of the fast, high flying, and more stealthy F22s will make the air combat situation considerably less complex for a sophisticated adversary. This will then increase the combat losses of US aircraft.It doesn't even have to emit for the F-35 to sniff it out...
Well, that will be your own little secret.No it's not. At least, As far as i am aware it's factual.
The USAF is constantly reassessing it's numbers needed, and certainly isn't so much guided by the absolute superiority of the f-22 as it is an airframes one. I want one source, from an official USAF document, which deems the current number high risk. I only want one source... when you get it, post it. When you do, i'll have to get those committee hearings of Sec Def Gates. The guy running the show.
WHY will the F-35 have enormous problems dealing with these fighters. If you can source me an article other than some idiot that goes by the name of CarloKopp and his assorted goons, on why the F-35 is inferior, go for it. Post it here and critique it. Until then it's pure speculation. There are so many technical flaws in such assertions it's a discredit and simply pointless debating it. The amount of times unsubstantiated claims comes up is simply phenominal.They will have enormous difficulty dealing with new generation Russian integrated air defenses and fighters. Russia is proliferating these systems around the world.
You have got 20 B-2's which can take out critical high value targets. Only 20 B2's. Thats heaps. It's plenty when you consider the other targetting options available.There are only 20 of them.
All Aspect stealth? So this aircraft has a lower thermal signature does it? So this aircraft can prosecute an attack on anything, from anyrange, and not be seen right? and the F-35 cannot be? Supercruise is not a fundamental advantage.Better all aspect stealth, and supercruise are the most fundamental advantages.
In terms of modern targetting systems, the ability for a radar to track and engage a target is half the story. The closer and closer the range, the more and more vulnerable that aircraft is.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The F-35 has more integrated assets available at it's fingertips than the F-22. It does so, because it's tech is advanced in it's thinking by 15 years.We have not.
F-35 doesn't even need it's radar to prosecute an attack. And radar aint mean much if it can't prosecute an attack any better than passive systems can. Even then the launch projectile has to pass through the aircrafts defensive suite. It can use other radar information from other airborne assets as if it were it's own.The situational awareness depends heavily on radar systems, and the F-22 has a bigger radar antenna with potential for additional side scan arrays.
A simple listing of the systems going on the F-35 is enough to suffice. Some of these systems are clearly visible. But the argument runs both ways. It's absurd to insist the F-22 is superior, without so much as taking into consideration the advances made it tracking,targetting & networking since the F-22 was conceived.Also, there is insufficient public information regarding the detailed capabilities of the passive EW sensors on the F-22 to state whether the F-35's system is better.
Do you actually believe that? What about all the reputable government reviews, that have said the opposite? Millions have been spent on this question. Not only is there flat ou tech issues,, and cost of export version, it'salso considered a waste of resources. In Australia it was held up only for oppositions sake.In fact, the Israeli and the Japanese air forces' desire to acquire F22s despite the availability of the F-35 speaks volumes about their relative capabilities.
Errr. yes it does... Doesn't matter if your a blimp. The pertinent regime is targeting ability.The F-35 has better display systems and EO capabilities, but that does not equate better situational awareness in the pertinent regimes.
Because proving it would be too harder a question. Im sorry, but this is the same argument at the start of the thread. Answer the question, Why can't the F-35 fight its way in?Air combat is not a checklist and capabilities are not binary. This "analysis" is ridiculously simplified.
Why can't the f-35 do this?The Flanker will not be alone. US aircraft are expected to penetrate into enemy territory.
Material & source reference please. This is getting tiring. Mainly from the speculatation point of view, but a 50 cal has a damned long lethality range, but it depends on the guy pulling the trigger.By that time it will be within lethal range of an advanced integrated air defense system.
This is going to take a long time. The point is, it quite clearly is not thought of as needed. It's a new engine, and no doubt will be uprated. Plenty of aircraft I can think of that were 'never designed to'. Likewise there are plenty of synopsis available on the usefullness of supercruise. I.E damned useless on an A-10. Damned useless if the F-35 isn't designed to fight that way.It has never had that capability and was never designed to.
You beleive that the F-22 has all aspect stealth. It does not. You believe that because it has the all aspect stealth (which it does not) that it is better than everything in air combat(which it is at present, nobody is denying that).You are far too believing of the Lockheed marketing material. Your analysis is incredibly naive because you've reduced a complex air combat picture into a checklist.
If you want to wage rinto the name calling bit, i'd say it's naive to boil the whole of the argument down to the F-22's radar, and it's all aspect stealth which it does not have. If your Plane cannot target until within visual range all that money is useless. If it can't reasonably find it in it's patrol area, all that money is useless.
FTR I think LM's advertising is useless junk. They make fantastic high res photo's though. As far as I recall Lockheed Martin changed their slogan from mission success after a serious of their very expensive rockets blew up on launch... rather contradictory...
Why?The US likes to play offense and the F-22 is an offensive capability. As such its level of stealth and its level of operational maturity is necessary to save US lives.
Life is very cheap in many parts of the world. If you want to pay rediculous sums of money just so you might save a few pilots lives, instead of pumping it into systems where your gauranteed not to loose any lives, and be a whole lot cheaper, then your a whole way behind the 8ball. At any which rate the F-35 will wipe the floor with them anyway. At this rate, I can see I will be having to source some of my files from the delves of the bookmarks and google
Thats not all it has. I'm tired of saying EOTS, really tired of it. I havn't said anymore, because i've been too slack to look them up recently, but I shall do so I suppose.The F-35 has superior passive IR capabilities.
It does not mean that the target has been aquired. It does not mean the target is easily killable. It does not mean the F-35 does have any otherarray of integrated, networked systems onboard to do what the F-22 does not.This requires the aircraft to be within lethal detection and killing range of new generation integrated air defenses.
183 isn't an adequate number?????There will be ways to compensate, but the lack of adequate numbers of the fast, high flying, and more stealthy F22s will make the air combat situation considerably less complex for a sophisticated adversary. This will then increase the combat losses of US aircraft.
Why is readily available information freely available on the f-22, my little secret & dead wrong? If you would like for me to post a whole heap of technobabble and thesis of these systems I can spend 2 days compiling the information for you. Or i spose 2 weeks of spare time.Well, that will be your own little secret.
Nothing here is revolutionary. Nothing here is an arduos claim. Nothing here has been said that is outlandish. There are people out there probably thinking right now "These 2 guys are idiots, debating over mundane things which only form a fraction of the capabilities of the respective aircrafts."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: