It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
a reply to: C0bzz
There is nothing the F-35 can do that the F-22 can't. Period. The Raptor is an "F/A". It can even carry more munitions externally than the 35...bigger plane.
Re: range. If you take look at F-16.net, F-22 forum and the thread entitled "internal fuel", you will see the reason for the "lesser range". They narrowed the fuselage to meet the super-cruise requirement-defined as higher than M1.5- and caused less fuel capacity. Hence less range.
Dissecting that 'range factor' a bit and a different picture comes forth. Long distance requires tankers, this restricts ALL platforms to the tanker's speed. Range isn't an issue.
Where the super-cruise in a Raptor off-sets 'range' is entering a combat zone at M1.5 and upwards to M1.8. ALL other platforms are now on full burners just to intercept the Raptor/s....guzzling their fuel! Bye-bye range advantage!!
If I'm an Aussie....or a Canadian, for that matter, I want two engines, not one. Worst case scenario, do you want to go up against a 5th Gen Chinese fighter in a 35... or a 22?
There's about one F-16 per month digging holes in the ground, world-wide....one engine.
Pretty much every nation out there uses two, these days, except, of course the F-35....which was originally designed to replace the Harrier which only required one engine!
As far as the bunk issued by the Aussie DOD re the Raptor, it looks like 'same old, same old'. Do what uncle sam tell's em...
The projected capabilities of the Advent engine is an increase of thrust by 10% and range by 25%! So a country could purchase the original F-22, and if need be, or desired could upgrade to the Advent engine....or not.
Pretty much every nation out there uses two, these days, except, of course the F-35....
Sigh, OK. I give in. Your playing semantics here. So the Raptor can't haul 2000 lb ordinance internally. Without upgrades, the Raptor can precisely place JDAMs from an altitude of 50K from at least 50KMs distant. The F-35 cannot.(It hasn't the speed nor altitude capability to do so)
Therefore, following your 'logic' the F-35 can't perform CAS roles? Hardly. Different ordinance, same result. The F/A label is political, obviously.
Your 100 to 1000 range comment is hyperbole, as well. No aircraft currently in service can match M1.5+ of the Raptor, hence extra fuel burnt, again obviously.
(Raptor Vs F-35? Really?)
The A-10 doesn't have the electronic capability of the F-35 either....goodness. Is the A-10 therefore incapable of CAS?
The communications issue is easily addressed and hasn't been due the fact they have a means of communication between the Raptor and legacy aircraft, hence a low priority....
You had better research the development of the F-35 before commenting further. There is a video where chief designer of the F-35 stated explicitly that the original "F-35" came about due to the power increase available in the PW F119 engine-which resulted in the F-135-and it was specifically intended for a Harrier replacement. The two other variants were 'after the fact', concepts. Hence one engine, albeit bigger in size.
originally posted by: Caughtlurking
a reply to: Zaphod58
Honestly wish they'd let the hornet evolve 1 more time. The super hornet is awfully underrated because of all the sentimental feelings left behind by the F-14. It's reliable, does everything well, and has shown it can fit the "every role" role.