Still the best fighter jet ever built IMO ... too bad they killed the program in 2009, and only 187 were built by the time the last one was delivered in 2012. They claim the F-35 can replace it, but I'd like to see them go up against each other. The F-35 can do VTOL ... but can it match the F-22 in the sky?
F-22 Awesomeness
- Thread starter ZeeOSix
- Start date
- Status
The F22 is more of a pure air superiority fighter while the F35 is a jack of all trades that is probably strongest at ground attack...in simplistic terms, my take is that the former is the new F15 while the latter is a modern F4 Phantom.
I think the F4 suffered from trying to have one airframe handle too many different roles and I worry that the same will happen with the F35...the F111 might be another apt comparison.
There are already a lot of troubling signs that the F35 is not going to be a good dogfighter, which may not be crucial depending upon its exact role...but, sad to hear as it is supposed to do "everything" well.
Some sources argue that the F35 must be great because so many countries are buying it, but the F104 was a big export success that turned out to be an extremely limited plane (although it looked great in "The Right Stuff").
I think the F4 suffered from trying to have one airframe handle too many different roles and I worry that the same will happen with the F35...the F111 might be another apt comparison.
There are already a lot of troubling signs that the F35 is not going to be a good dogfighter, which may not be crucial depending upon its exact role...but, sad to hear as it is supposed to do "everything" well.
Some sources argue that the F35 must be great because so many countries are buying it, but the F104 was a big export success that turned out to be an extremely limited plane (although it looked great in "The Right Stuff").
On a side note, pure ear candy was the sound of a Phantom kicking in those afterburners.
Who claims the F-35 will replace the F-22?
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter with some multirole capability. The F-35 is a multirole aircraft. There is some overlap but not much. The only missions where the F-35 will "replace" the F-22 are the ones the F-22 has been filling in for because we haven't had (enough) combat-ready F-35s.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter with some multirole capability. The F-35 is a multirole aircraft. There is some overlap but not much. The only missions where the F-35 will "replace" the F-22 are the ones the F-22 has been filling in for because we haven't had (enough) combat-ready F-35s.
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
in simplistic terms, my take is that the former is the new F15 while the latter is a modern F4 Phantom.
If by F-15 you meant F-15C. That's the air superiority variant. The F-15E is a strike aircraft, which the F-35 will be replacing in many (most? all?) missions.
in simplistic terms, my take is that the former is the new F15 while the latter is a modern F4 Phantom.
If by F-15 you meant F-15C. That's the air superiority variant. The F-15E is a strike aircraft, which the F-35 will be replacing in many (most? all?) missions.
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
There are already a lot of troubling signs that the F35 is not going to be a good dogfighter, which may not be crucial depending upon its exact role...but, sad to hear as it is supposed to do "everything" well.
Meh on the importance of the dog fighting role when 99.999% of any air battle is way beyond line of sight.
Who ever sees the enemy first kills the enemy first and the US has the best technology with on board sensors, AWACs, satellites, and whatever else is used that we do not know about.
An AIM-120 anti-air can hit targets beyond 97nm (180kms)
Example - In a US carrier group, picket ships and AWACs operate 200 nm (370kms) out from the carrier group. With other multilayer detection in from there.
There are already a lot of troubling signs that the F35 is not going to be a good dogfighter, which may not be crucial depending upon its exact role...but, sad to hear as it is supposed to do "everything" well.
Meh on the importance of the dog fighting role when 99.999% of any air battle is way beyond line of sight.
Who ever sees the enemy first kills the enemy first and the US has the best technology with on board sensors, AWACs, satellites, and whatever else is used that we do not know about.
An AIM-120 anti-air can hit targets beyond 97nm (180kms)
Example - In a US carrier group, picket ships and AWACs operate 200 nm (370kms) out from the carrier group. With other multilayer detection in from there.
USMC ruined the F35 because they required VTOL. VTOL added unnecessary weight and complexity.
side note: I used to live near Lockheed Martin where the F22 underwent final assembly and flight testing. The [censored] thing is huge compared to say an F16 (but what isn't).
side note: I used to live near Lockheed Martin where the F22 underwent final assembly and flight testing. The [censored] thing is huge compared to say an F16 (but what isn't).
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Some sources argue that the F35 must be great because so many countries are buying it, but the F104 was a big export success that turned out to be an extremely limited plane (although it looked great in "The Right Stuff").
There are also reports it's too expensive and unreliable.
Canada was going to purchase them but we were put off by the price and it became a big political fight.
Israel is also putting their F-35 order on hold and buying more F-15s.
Some sources argue that the F35 must be great because so many countries are buying it, but the F104 was a big export success that turned out to be an extremely limited plane (although it looked great in "The Right Stuff").
There are also reports it's too expensive and unreliable.
Canada was going to purchase them but we were put off by the price and it became a big political fight.
Israel is also putting their F-35 order on hold and buying more F-15s.
Originally Posted by Danno
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
There are already a lot of troubling signs that the F35 is not going to be a good dogfighter, which may not be crucial depending upon its exact role...but, sad to hear as it is supposed to do "everything" well.
Meh on the importance of the dog fighting role when 99.999% of any air battle is way beyond line of sight.
Who ever sees the enemy first kills the enemy first and the US has the best technology with on board sensors, AWACs, satellites, and whatever else is used that we do not know about.
An AIM-120 anti-air can hit targets beyond 97nm (180kms)
Example - In a US carrier group, picket ships and AWACs operate 200 nm (370kms) out from the carrier group. With other multilayer detection in from there.
In addition to that, the F-35 DOES do dogfighting well.
People complain because they think it can't hang with the absolute best dogfighters in the world. That's true to some extent. But it's like calling someone a bad runner because they can't beat Usain Bolt in a 100m dash. And as Danno said, dogfighting ain't exactly the most important thing these days. It's like knife fighting for soldiers. Do you want your guys to be able to do it well? Absolutely. But if your adversaries have a few guys who are better at it, and if your guys are better at literally everything else, how much sleep are you really going to lose?
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
There are already a lot of troubling signs that the F35 is not going to be a good dogfighter, which may not be crucial depending upon its exact role...but, sad to hear as it is supposed to do "everything" well.
Meh on the importance of the dog fighting role when 99.999% of any air battle is way beyond line of sight.
Who ever sees the enemy first kills the enemy first and the US has the best technology with on board sensors, AWACs, satellites, and whatever else is used that we do not know about.
An AIM-120 anti-air can hit targets beyond 97nm (180kms)
Example - In a US carrier group, picket ships and AWACs operate 200 nm (370kms) out from the carrier group. With other multilayer detection in from there.
In addition to that, the F-35 DOES do dogfighting well.
People complain because they think it can't hang with the absolute best dogfighters in the world. That's true to some extent. But it's like calling someone a bad runner because they can't beat Usain Bolt in a 100m dash. And as Danno said, dogfighting ain't exactly the most important thing these days. It's like knife fighting for soldiers. Do you want your guys to be able to do it well? Absolutely. But if your adversaries have a few guys who are better at it, and if your guys are better at literally everything else, how much sleep are you really going to lose?
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Danno
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
There are already a lot of troubling signs that the F35 is not going to be a good dogfighter, which may not be crucial depending upon its exact role...but, sad to hear as it is supposed to do "everything" well.
Meh on the importance of the dog fighting role when 99.999% of any air battle is way beyond line of sight.
Who ever sees the enemy first kills the enemy first and the US has the best technology with on board sensors, AWACs, satellites, and whatever else is used that we do not know about.
An AIM-120 anti-air can hit targets beyond 97nm (180kms)
Example - In a US carrier group, picket ships and AWACs operate 200 nm (370kms) out from the carrier group. With other multilayer detection in from there.
In addition to that, the F-35 DOES do dogfighting well.
People complain because they think it can't hang with the absolute best dogfighters in the world. That's true to some extent. But it's like calling someone a bad runner because they can't beat Usain Bolt in a 100m dash. And as Danno said, dogfighting isn't hugely relevant. It's like knife fighting for soldiers. Do you want your guys to be able to do it well? Absolutely. But if your adversaries have a few guys who are better at it, and if your guys are better at literally everything else, how much sleep are you really going to lose?
My understanding is that is does not dogfight well at all. Jack of all trades-master of none.
Originally Posted by Danno
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
There are already a lot of troubling signs that the F35 is not going to be a good dogfighter, which may not be crucial depending upon its exact role...but, sad to hear as it is supposed to do "everything" well.
Meh on the importance of the dog fighting role when 99.999% of any air battle is way beyond line of sight.
Who ever sees the enemy first kills the enemy first and the US has the best technology with on board sensors, AWACs, satellites, and whatever else is used that we do not know about.
An AIM-120 anti-air can hit targets beyond 97nm (180kms)
Example - In a US carrier group, picket ships and AWACs operate 200 nm (370kms) out from the carrier group. With other multilayer detection in from there.
In addition to that, the F-35 DOES do dogfighting well.
People complain because they think it can't hang with the absolute best dogfighters in the world. That's true to some extent. But it's like calling someone a bad runner because they can't beat Usain Bolt in a 100m dash. And as Danno said, dogfighting isn't hugely relevant. It's like knife fighting for soldiers. Do you want your guys to be able to do it well? Absolutely. But if your adversaries have a few guys who are better at it, and if your guys are better at literally everything else, how much sleep are you really going to lose?
My understanding is that is does not dogfight well at all. Jack of all trades-master of none.
Originally Posted by camrydriver111
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Some sources argue that the F35 must be great because so many countries are buying it, but the F104 was a big export success that turned out to be an extremely limited plane (although it looked great in "The Right Stuff").
There are also reports it's too expensive and unreliable.
Canada was going to purchase them but we were put off by the price and it became a big political fight.
Israel is also putting their F-35 order on hold and buying more F-15s.
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Some sources argue that the F35 must be great because so many countries are buying it, but the F104 was a big export success that turned out to be an extremely limited plane (although it looked great in "The Right Stuff").
There are also reports it's too expensive and unreliable.
Canada was going to purchase them but we were put off by the price and it became a big political fight.
Israel is also putting their F-35 order on hold and buying more F-15s.
Israel F15 and F22 purchases
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-new-f-15s-isnt-a-referendum-on-the-f-35
Also Canada has preferred 2 engines considering where they patrol
Concerning the F35's ability as reported the F35 is finally getting the software updates to let the F35 be all it can be.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-new-f-15s-isnt-a-referendum-on-the-f-35
Also Canada has preferred 2 engines considering where they patrol
Concerning the F35's ability as reported the F35 is finally getting the software updates to let the F35 be all it can be.
The F-22 vs the F-35 is essentially an example of the old 80/20 rule. The F-22 costs 80% more, for 20% more capability. And that's not even actually right... it cost more like 200% more, and its "more capability" is only in a very narrow slice of mission types (air superiority).
Originally Posted by 440Magnum
The F-22 vs the F-35 is essentially an example of the old 80/20 rule. The F-22 costs 80% more, for 20% more capability. And that's not even actually right... it cost more like 200% more, and its "more capability" is only in a very narrow slice of mission types (air superiority).
I feel like every testimonial I've heard from pilots of these planes says that the difference in capability is.... a lot more than 20%. It's the difference between a plane that basically can't even enter modern defended airspace, and one that can almost go wherever it wants with impunity. A plane that may be a significant threat, and one you won't even know is there until your assets start blowing up.
And that slice of mission types might be narrowly defined, but it's part of the substrate for all the rest.
I'm not one to judge; I have to take the word of the people who do this for a living. They say the F-22 (and the F-35 for that matter) isn't just an incremental step over 4th-gen aircraft; they say it's a complete game changer, one that's nothing short of make-or-break in a high-end threat environment.
The F-22 vs the F-35 is essentially an example of the old 80/20 rule. The F-22 costs 80% more, for 20% more capability. And that's not even actually right... it cost more like 200% more, and its "more capability" is only in a very narrow slice of mission types (air superiority).
I feel like every testimonial I've heard from pilots of these planes says that the difference in capability is.... a lot more than 20%. It's the difference between a plane that basically can't even enter modern defended airspace, and one that can almost go wherever it wants with impunity. A plane that may be a significant threat, and one you won't even know is there until your assets start blowing up.
And that slice of mission types might be narrowly defined, but it's part of the substrate for all the rest.
I'm not one to judge; I have to take the word of the people who do this for a living. They say the F-22 (and the F-35 for that matter) isn't just an incremental step over 4th-gen aircraft; they say it's a complete game changer, one that's nothing short of make-or-break in a high-end threat environment.
20-1 kill ratio at Red Flag over a year and a half ago for the F-35. With tactics and software updates being refined all the time to take full advantage of the new platform, I'd say the F-35 is doing just fine. As per the F-22, I've seen it do some pretty mind-boggling things in the air. Incredible plane.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35a-records-20-to-1-kill-ratio-at-red-flag-exercise
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35a-records-20-to-1-kill-ratio-at-red-flag-exercise
We should have like 30 of these in the inventory. Long loiter times, great for ground troop support, cheap to own and maintain compared to everything else we have. We have had complete air superiority in almost every conflict in the past 20 years, so these things would be fine for most of the engagements we find ourselves in.
A29 Super Turcano
![[Linked Image]](https://cdn.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/1605/2568581/1000w_q95.jpg "[Linked Image]")
A29 Super Turcano
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
in simplistic terms, my take is that the former is the new F15 while the latter is a modern F4 Phantom.
If by F-15 you meant F-15C. That's the air superiority variant. The F-15E is a strike aircraft, which the F-35 will be replacing in many (most? all?) missions.
I figured somebody would bring up the Strike Eagle! Yes, it is an immensely capable ground attack aircraft...there was some controversy when it was announced as the airframe was not really optimized for the role. The manufacturer was able to demonstrate that some very fancy avionics would let a plane with a relatively low wing loading succeed quite well at a low/fast attack profile where any buffeting can reduce accuracy (probably less of an issue with smart weapons), plus you had the bonus of a plane with great air superiority capability once it unloaded its ground attack munitions (assuming some AAMs were still carried). The F16 was more of a natural ground attack capable plane and there were a lot of projects proposed to increase its munitions carrying capability and introduce a bigger lookdown radar, but the AF probably found it cheaper to base something on the already bigger F15.
As for the posts about dogfighting not being meaningful, that's what they said before Vietnam. The original F4s didn't even have an internal cannon because it just wouldn't be needed...jsimply acquire the target far off and lob a Sparrow at it. Of course, then rules about visual ID were developed to prevent shooting down friendly planes that might not be responding to IFF for some reason and then the Phantoms were tangling with less sophisticated but more maneuverable planes like the MiG21 at close range without a cannon.
The US has had the benefit of pretty easy air superiority in the most recent conflicts, but we sure can't assume that will be the case in the future.
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
in simplistic terms, my take is that the former is the new F15 while the latter is a modern F4 Phantom.
If by F-15 you meant F-15C. That's the air superiority variant. The F-15E is a strike aircraft, which the F-35 will be replacing in many (most? all?) missions.
I figured somebody would bring up the Strike Eagle! Yes, it is an immensely capable ground attack aircraft...there was some controversy when it was announced as the airframe was not really optimized for the role. The manufacturer was able to demonstrate that some very fancy avionics would let a plane with a relatively low wing loading succeed quite well at a low/fast attack profile where any buffeting can reduce accuracy (probably less of an issue with smart weapons), plus you had the bonus of a plane with great air superiority capability once it unloaded its ground attack munitions (assuming some AAMs were still carried). The F16 was more of a natural ground attack capable plane and there were a lot of projects proposed to increase its munitions carrying capability and introduce a bigger lookdown radar, but the AF probably found it cheaper to base something on the already bigger F15.
As for the posts about dogfighting not being meaningful, that's what they said before Vietnam. The original F4s didn't even have an internal cannon because it just wouldn't be needed...jsimply acquire the target far off and lob a Sparrow at it. Of course, then rules about visual ID were developed to prevent shooting down friendly planes that might not be responding to IFF for some reason and then the Phantoms were tangling with less sophisticated but more maneuverable planes like the MiG21 at close range without a cannon.
The US has had the benefit of pretty easy air superiority in the most recent conflicts, but we sure can't assume that will be the case in the future.
The Raptor is simply the baddest fighter ever built. It outperforms every other airplane in world in every single aspect of performance.
What you see at the airshow is proof of the incredible airframe/engine performance, but believe me, the weapon system performance is even more impressive.
What you see at the airshow is proof of the incredible airframe/engine performance, but believe me, the weapon system performance is even more impressive.
Originally Posted by tenderloin
Israel F15 and F22 purchases
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-new-f-15s-isnt-a-referendum-on-the-f-35
Also Canada has preferred 2 engines considering where they patrol
Concerning the F35's ability as reported the F35 is finally getting the software updates to let the F35 be all it can be.
The F-22 was never sold to any other country ... and never will be because the last one of only 187 made was delivered to the USAF in 2012.
Israel F15 and F22 purchases
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-new-f-15s-isnt-a-referendum-on-the-f-35
Also Canada has preferred 2 engines considering where they patrol
Concerning the F35's ability as reported the F35 is finally getting the software updates to let the F35 be all it can be.
The F-22 was never sold to any other country ... and never will be because the last one of only 187 made was delivered to the USAF in 2012.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
