To my best understanding, the F22 Raptor would be sort of similar to the F15 in comparison to the F35 being the F16. Do you get my reference there I
The F-15 carried it's fuel to the fight. When it dropped that fuel to gain pole-acceleration for BVR and turn rate for WVR, it was instantly at a
fuel decision point, for recovery back to the tanker, not least because it was also conventionally signatured. The F-22 is equal to the F-15A in
afterburner performance, the F-15E in fuel and the F-117 in signature. That's a whole 'nother sort of 'revolution by evolution' (lumpsum =
synergy of more than it's parts) than a straight comparison for size, class weight and warload would suggest.
Realisitically, the F-16 has always been a 300nm fighter. You can stretch it to 500-550 with a very carefully flown profile and out to 700 or more
with tanking. But the radius and payload issues have always been a key shortcoming on the LGPOS and are the direct result of the morons in the
Fighter Mafia designing a jet to the 'last war' SEA standard of beating the MiG-21 over Hanoi out of Thai bases. The F-35 is closer to being the
F-16E with CFT and 600 gallon tanks but here there is a dichotomy if not schism in compareable weaposn system capabilities because while the F-16 can
carry almost any munition in the inventory to either self defend it's way into a target conventionally. Or trade radius for standoff in saturating
high intensity threats, the F-35, as now configured, is a bit of a one course horse. It doesn't match the F-16s 4 AMRAAM. It /can't/ carry the
HARM internally and it's ability to buy into weapons like the AGM-158 is also limited by signature considerations. While it's 500-700nm radius is
quite credible, even in the ME/SWA environment; it achieves this at subsonic cruise and given that it costs roughly twice what an F-16E does (4X what
an F-16C.50 did) that means your people are gonna get awful tired and your sortie numerics are actually gonna drop off based on inventory buys and and
likely absolute radius vs. radius+loiter issues in the target area.
1. Anybody have any in-cockpit photos of the F22 or F35? I would like to see the controls, such as the throttle and stick and DDI's.
It's called Google.
Make it your friend.
2. What does the F35 bring to the battle that the Raptor does not do better, or is it just that is made as an export and cheaper?
In the long run, it's not cheaper. Even paired back to the point where economies of scale are completely blown out, the F-22 is a 70-90 billion
dollar program. Last I heard they were up to 276 billion and counting on the F-35 and that's for less than /half/ the original proposed buy.
Designed for export only has worth when you are in a strong enough bargaining position to tell them to go rot when they demand more than they deserve
in the way of production technologies, LO, and IW architecture/code control. Of course it doesn't help that the REAL cost on this puppy is about 112
million and the /promised/ cost was 45 million.
As far as superiorities, well, that's the kicker isn't it? Nobody will fess up and SAY how far the F-22 will supercruise using an optimum climbout
and acceleration profile. Nor compare outright what it's signature levels are nor state exactly how well integrated the ALR-94, block.20 SAR and
various IAM/AMRAAM _A2G_ engagement options are.
The F-35 has about half the performance envelope of the F-22. The F-35 has a Gen-3 FLIR. The F-35 has a weapons bay capable of carrying 2,000lb
JDAM. And the F-35 has rather more advanced IW and NCW connectivity. Beyond that, it's a pig in lipstick as far as I can tell, not least because it
doesn't /need/ to be a 'fighter' in the traditional sense (now that we have multishot, 60nm, quiet-shooter LRAAM capabilities) and thus the
presence of a man onboard (as all 'fighters' must have) cripples it for the very kinds of cost and performance excellence areas that are NOT
linearly compareable with the Raptor.
3. Is there any chance that the Raptor could get 360 degree thrudt vectoring in the future?
Why would it want it? The current configuration offers superior signature protection and better boat-tail effects than the axissymmetric nozzel would
allow for. Dogfighting doesn't happen at 40,000ft and /certainly/ not at 60,000ft. And the F-22 would be stupid to come down below this guaranteed
superiority threshold while weighing anything up to 40,000lbs more than a purpose built airshow sex toy does. Real wars are won with missiles and
control of the Ps graph. Only boes play nose hose games.
4. Is there any real comparison between the F22 and the F35 in performance?
As stated, I have read a JSF testpilot quote that it has half the performance envelope of the F-22. The real question is whether or not the 'high
right' of /any/ absolute performance chart is useful. In the Raptor it is because it has the purpose built weapons system, LO -and- performance
(compression ratio and wing area) to create an exploitable total mission system. In the F-35(A), well, you're looking at twice the takeoff weight of
an F-16C.50 on 1.5 times the wing area which means you can take 5 mach points and 30,000ft off the top of the Raptors performance graph. With all of
two shots of any flavor to make up the difference, I would not fight the Lightning over 25-30,000ft, and that means I /have/ to fight every Slobodan,
Saddam and Singh that cares to come looking for me in platforms with vastly superior wing, thrust and weaponloading available to them. As much if not
more than the F-16, the F-35 will depend on pack tactics and very careful control of sensor geometries and WEZ exposures thru NCW techniques to offset
the absent capabilities of the platform itself. And in a stealth asset which is intended to 'go places' nobody else can and COSTS 2-4X what current
inventory airframes do, that kind of shortfall in independent performance capability seems a step backwards.
Mod Edit: Quoting other's posts – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 18-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]