F22 vs. F35....some thoughts and questions

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Alright,

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 hope??

I am wondering a few things:

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.

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?

3. Is there any chance that the Raptor could get 360 degree thrudt vectoring in the future?

4. Is there any real comparison between the F22 and the F35 in performance?

Thanks for the help, just curious about the latest technology (that we know of at least).

Peace, Mondogiwa




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Mondogiwa,

>>
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 hope??
>>

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.

www.aerospaceweb.org...
www.afa.org...
media.popularmechanics.com...

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.


KPl.



Mod Edit: Quoting other's posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I think it's better to say F-14 and F-18.

The original hornet quite obviously had newer avionics, a few little neat tricks that the tomcat wasn't capable of.. (remember the F-35 energy hardpoint?) and other things.

The F-14 however was the "star of the show" for a long time, definitely larger in size, faster, and more powerful weaponry. I'd relate to this like the 22.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I have a performance question also:
Does the F22 have a 60,000 ft cruise capability?
I know ceiling performance is sometimes what an aircraft can fly "up" to, but have heard that the F22 can maintain this altitude, which would seem to be a huge advantage.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Well, pilots have been quoted as saying things like "going Mach 2 at 60,000", or "cruising at Mach 1.9 at 60,000" etc.. So yes, it can cruise and fight at 60k feet, the true figure is more like 65,000 feet. This combined with speed is what gives the AMRAAM that extra range. And it is partially responsible for why Raptor pilots have a "god's eye view" of the battlefield and why they can engage at will and with impunity.

As for the F-22 vs. F-35, well the F-35 will never match the Raptor in raw performance, nor in stealth or maneuverability (360 TVC is unnecessary and in this case it would do more harm than good). The F-35's avionics may be more "advanced", integrated and broad but it's sensors wont have the range/power of those found on the Raptor.

As for pictures of an F-22 or F-35 cockpit... well, there are only pictures of F-22 simulator cockpits and no (public) pictures of a real cockpit (that I'm aware of). However there are real pictures of an YF-22 cockpit, though it's very different from the current cockpit found on the F-22A.

F-22 Simulated Cockpit



Since a combat standard F-35 has not been produced yet there are no true pictures of the final F-35 cockpit. But there is a picture of the cockpit found on the AA-1 (a pre production test aircraft). And here it is...

AA-1 Cockpit Pictures


[edit on 16-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
3. Is there any chance that the Raptor could get 360 degree thrudt vectoring in the future?


To put it bluntly, probably not. There are a couple snafus with the design of the Raptor that don't allow for the 360 TVC.

1) There are no designs in place for 360-vectored engines to be mass produced. The concept was explored on a couple testbeds (F-16 VISTA I think was one of them), but no more than that. The only way for the USAF to get their grubby paws on some engines with 360 TVC would be to ask the Russians nicely. Which isn't going to happen.

2) The outlet design of the Raptor doesn't allow for it. The engine outlets are rather rectangular, meaning that the current Russian designs won't work. Also, the engine outlets are too cramped. The current Russian designs using the 360 TVC have engine outlets clear of obstructions, but the Raptor's elevators get in the way. No matter how much fun you think it might be, melting your elevators can cause a couple minor speed bumps when you try to... I don't know... Survive?

Yeah, it looks grim for 360 TVC and the Raptor. Although I think the 6th Generation aircraft are going to have it as a priority. However, PAK-FA is slated to have it, so we'll get to see how a stealthy design integrates 360 TVC fairly soon.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
The above post was funny as hell!!! The reason why the F-22 does not have 3D TVC is because, to put it simply, it does not need it! Not to mention it would be in conflict with the overall LO theme of the plane. It's not because the US can't produce a 3D TVC engine (we did it a long time ago), and no it's not going to be a must have in future 6th gen UCAV's.

The Flanker and Mig had 3D TVC added on later (Mig's initially did not even have FBW), the F-22 was designed from day one with TVC in mind. As such it has a dedicated airframe (and FLCS) designed to be maneuverable and to take advantage of 2D TVC to the fullest. That is why it is as agile as any fighter out there with 3D TVC (probably more so with a combat load). And as I said before the exhausts were also deisgned to reduce tailpipe RCS and Infared, good luck doing that with a conventional blowpipe.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the F-22 was designed from day one with TVC in mind. As such it has a dedicated airframe (and FLCS) designed to be maneuverable and to take advantage of 2D TVC to the fullest. That is why it is as agile as any fighter out there with 3D TVC (probably more so with a combat load). And as I said before the exhausts were also deisgned to reduce tailpipe RCS and Infared, good luck doing that with a conventional blowpipe.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by WestPoint23]


While designed with TVC in mind, one of the specifications was to be able to recover from high alpha situations without TVC - so if the nozzles broke, the aircraft wouldn't be banjaxed. Not a criticism, in my view, this makes it a better aircraft.


Oh, and I've probably already mentioned the nozzles are not designed for IR surpression - it would be a complete waste of time trying to hide the signature.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The reason why the F-22 does not have 3D TVC is because, to put it simply, it does not need it! Not to mention it would be in conflict with the overall LO theme of the plane. It's not because the US can't produce a 3D TVC engine (we did it a long time ago)


I didn't say they couldn't. I'm aware that it has been done, but not in the mass quantities you would need for a production aircraft.


and no it's not going to be a must have in future 6th gen UCAV's.


If you say so.


The Flanker and Mig had 3D TVC added on later (Mig's initially did not even have FBW), the F-22 was designed from day one with TVC in mind.


If we were to compare the states of both aircraft at the time that the MiG still lacked FBW the Raptors we know would not even exist, so lets not compare 21st Century Fighters to a Cold War Fighter, hmm? The only fair fighter to compare the Raptor to right now would be the Su-47 Berkut. While it's not in production its still on the level with the Raptor. Conveniently, it also has 3D TVC which makes it a useful comparison in this discussion. Also as a better comparison, you might have to wait until the PAK-FA comes out before we can meet any true competitors for the Raptor.



As such it has a dedicated airframe (and FLCS) designed to be maneuverable and to take advantage of 2D TVC to the fullest. That is why it is as agile as any fighter out there with 3D TVC (probably more so with a combat load).


Actually the big reason for that is the internal weapons bay. Even if the a/c is heavier there won't be any extra drag. However, I'm fairly sure that if the US could easily put 360 TVC onto the Raptor, they would. Just like the gun pod and the 2D TVC, it just might come in handy.



And as I said before the exhausts were also deisgned to reduce tailpipe RCS and Infared, good luck doing that with a conventional blowpipe.


Erm... No? kilcoo316 has already brought this up, and yeah it'd be a waste of time trying to hid it. It's a large mass of hot air coming out the back of the aircraft. Rather hard to miss. The only way to not see it is if it isn't there as much, i.e. throttling the engines back. Of course, since you kind of need that thrust to live you can't exactly plug up the holes in the back of the plane.

[edit on 2/18/2007 by Darkpr0]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
I didn't say they couldn't. I'm aware that it has been done, but not in the mass quantities you would need for a production aircraft.


...because it was deemed unnecessary for the F-22 and not beneficial enough to go through all the problems of retrofitting it onto our existing aircraft. In any case I think you will find that there are less production Flankers/Migs with 3D TVC then there are F-22's with TVC.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
If we were to compare the states of both aircraft at the time that the MiG still lacked FBW the Raptors we know would not even exist, so lets not compare 21st Century Fighters to a Cold War Fighter, hmm?


Well, the Mig-29 was introduced in 1983, the ATF program had already been initiated by then and the YF-22 flew in 1990. Both aircraft were designed for the Cold War, it just so happens that the F-22 will dominate well into the 21st Century. Also, I'm glad that the Mig-29 and Su-27 cannot be compared to the F-22. Just a few years ago ignorance led (most of) us to believe the Raptor was completely outclassed by these two fighters when it came to maneuverability. Imagine that.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
The only fair fighter to compare the Raptor to right now would be the Su-47 Berkut. While it's not in production its still on the level with the Raptor.


According to who? The Berkut was a technology demonstrator, no more comparable to any current operational A/C then the F-15 ACTIVE of F-16 XL were to the Flankers and Mig's at the time. The Berkut was a test bed, lacking weapons, vital avionics, combat testing etc... Word of mouth and a "cool" wing do not translate to "on level with the Raptor". When, if, maybe the Berkut became a production aircraft and had some published results, then we can talk; until then lets leave all unfounded statement to ourselves, k?


Originally posted by Darkpr0
Also as a better comparison, you might have to wait until the PAK-FA comes out before we can meet any true competitors for the Raptor.


Fine by me, when this legendary PAK-FA finally flies and enters production we shall see how it stacks up.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
However, I'm fairly sure that if the US could easily put 360 TVC onto the Raptor, they would.


You just don't get it do you? We can put 3D TVC in any of our fighters, we just don't because overall we have deemed it unnecessary and impractical not to mention that we don't live by selling birds at air shows. As I said before the F-22 was designed to be maneuverable, the 2D TVC combined with it's design and FLCS achieve a level of maneuverability (even with a combat load) that we are content with. That is why 2D TVC was chosen from the beginning, the entire airframe was built around it, there is no need for 3D TVC. That is also why retrofitting a design and engine built around 2D TVC would not make sense and why it would do more harm than good.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
Just like the gun pod and the 2D TVC, it just might come in handy.


The F-22 has no gun pod, internal cannon instead.


Originally posted by Darkpr0
The only way to not see it is if it isn't there as much, i.e. throttling the engines back.


Kind of the idea behind Super-Cruising... In can case I'm sure special materials, exhaust design and flight profile can't hurt.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
...because it was deemed unnecessary for the F-22 and not beneficial enough to go through all the problems of retrofitting it onto our existing aircraft. In any case I think you will find that there are less production Flankers/Migs with 3D TVC then there are F-22's with TVC.


If anyone wants to buy them, they will build them. The USAF is buying the Raptors, wh ich is why they're being built. Nobody in Asia is currently inclined to buy the newest pieces of aviation (and I'm somewhat confused as to why the US would want to as well... None of the countries they're at war with have an air force that needs to be squashed as soon as possible.), but if someone expressed interest they would be produced.



Well, the Mig-29 was introduced in 1983, the ATF program had already been initiated by then and the YF-22 flew in 1990. Both aircraft were designed for the Cold War, it just so happens that the F-22 will dominate well into the 21st Century.


You're still trying ti compare an aircraft produced in 83 (according to your figure) to one that has just entered service in 2005, a difference of 22 years. A tad unfair, no?



Also, I'm glad that the Mig-29 and Su-27 cannot be compared to the F-22. Just a few years ago ignorance led (most of) us to believe the Raptor was completely outclassed by these two fighters when it came to maneuverability. Imagine that.


This discussion has been taken up many times and I'm too lazy to take it up. However, most comparisons are taken up between the F-22 and more recent variants of the Flanker like the Su-35 and Su-37.


According to who? The Berkut was a technology demonstrator, no more comparable to any current operational A/C then the F-15 ACTIVE of F-16 XL were to the Flankers and Mig's at the time. The Berkut was a test bed, lacking weapons, vital avionics, combat testing etc... Word of mouth and a "cool" wing do not translate to "on level with the Raptor". When, if, maybe the Berkut became a production aircraft and had some published results, then we can talk; until then lets leave all unfounded statement to ourselves, k?


Actually, wh en the Berkut was given the Su-47 monkier it was offered as a production aircraft to anyone who wanted to buy. HOwever, no one bought the plane and so the project was effectively cancelled.



You just don't get it do you? We can put 3D TVC in any of our fighters, we just don't because overall we have deemed it unnecessary and impractical not to mention that we don't live by selling birds at air shows. As I said before the F-22 was designed to be maneuverable, the 2D TVC combined with it's design and FLCS achieve a level of maneuverability (even with a combat load) that we are content with. That is why 2D TVC was chosen from the beginning, the entire airframe was built around it, there is no need for 3D TVC. That is also why retrofitting a design and engine built around 2D TVC would not make sense and why it would do more harm than good.


I didn't say it would be a good idea, but I did say that if it was feasible and ideal the US would do it. Right now they don't see a reason, so they won't.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Public pictures of the F-22 cockpit at the following link


F-22 cockpit



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Public pictures of the F-22 cockpit at the following link


Ah, thanks for those pictures Willard, too bad the displays weren't "lit up".



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Isn't the F-35 with the V/STOL capability? Or did they remove that? If they didn't then its better to say, that the F-35 blows the AV-8 Harrier out of the water.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
Isn't the F-35 with the V/STOL capability? Or did they remove that? If they didn't then its better to say, that the F-35 blows the AV-8 Harrier out of the water.


The F-35 comes in three variants, A B and C.

The A is the standard which has recently had its first flight. The F-35B has a liftfan for STOVL and is slated to replace the Harrier so its bound to be better. The F-35C is a Navy variant with folding wings etc for carrier capability.

B and C variants have not yet had first flights.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Neither has the A, strictly speaking. The one that has flown is an interim prototype and not representative of any version, the reason being that a lot of changes were made after they started to build it, so it was relegated to demonstrator status. The first fully representative F-35A is due to fly in 2008.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I didn't know they had a variant without the liftfan... I thought their main idea was to make it the most advanced STOVL ever made. Ow well, it never hurts to make 1 a bit different.

I think they'll use the other 2 (B and C) variants more than the first (A). The F-35 fits perfectly with the Navy fighter role, IMO. The F-22 is far superior (as far as everybody posted) to the F-35 in combat and performance, but the F-35 has Navy capabilities which is a bit of a bonus. I don't know if there is a Navy variant for the F-22, can anyone point me in the right direction?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
The A variant is going to be produced in higher numbers than the B and C, so how can they be the more widely used models?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   



I don't know if there is a Navy variant for the F-22, can anyone point me in the right direction?



here are a couple of sites discussing the proposed NATF, i hope you'll find them useful.


StrategyPage
GlobalSecurity NATF
AeroSpaceWeb

(fixed links)

[edit on 26-2-2007 by toreishi]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The A variant is going to be produced in higher numbers than the B and C, so how can they be the more widely used models?


True, The F-35A CTOL is also the main export variant and will be produced in far greter numbers than the other two versions and it will be used by the majority of the parter countries. Right now only the UK and USMC will use the F-35B and only the USN will use the F-35C, everyone else will use the F-35A.





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join