BF2S Forums F22 vs F35 what is the difference

motherdear wrote:

Feos, the f35 will not replace the A-10, it might accompliment it but it will not take over the role it has at the moment, it simply does not have the same advantages (heavier cargo loads, the ability to take serious amounts of punishment to the airframe, slower flying speed making it better for the CAS role).

but as other people said in here the airframes (harrier etc) does not need replacement, in my true opinion i believe that that is absolute bullshit, for every plane you have to have different replacement parts, pilots, mechanics and a whole lot of technicians for each plane, if you only have one plane (but with different types) they will safe money on maintainance and training of pilots etc. saving a lot on the defense budgets.
also one of the major reasons why the F-35 is cheaper is because the amount that is produced (supply and demand) which makes it cheaper, also the materials it is produced with are in some cases cheaper (but not weaker, but since there is a time difference between each developed airframe you are able to incorporate different materials into the airframe and systems that were not possible to be used on earlier airframes)

and last but not least, if you think that you have adequate products eventually other corporations/nations will overtake you eventually. if you just think that because you have a good aircraft it will stay that way you are very wrong, if you do not keep developing and advancing your products they will eventually lose. so research and development is very important and you must keep upgrading to stay on top.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-29 01:33:11)

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You are inventing possible threats that most likely will never happen to justify a new toy. Meanwhile you end up paying much more for an aircraft that does little more to protect you here in the real world (You get less of what you need).

While I agree the F-22 is heinously expensive, nobody's "inventing possible threats...to justify a new toy". Unless the Indians are in on it.

Cope India mean anything to anyone here?

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You are inventing possible threats that most likely will never happen to justify a new toy. Meanwhile you end up paying much more for an aircraft that does little more to protect you here in the real world (You get less of what you need).

While I agree the F-22 is heinously expensive, nobody's "inventing possible threats...to justify a new toy". Unless the Indians are in on it.

Cope India mean anything to anyone here?

I was looking for that link, that's what I mean by air frames don't matter anymore. You can teach an old dog new tricks, in this case, an Su-30 upgraded to MKI and a Mig-21 upgraded to "Bison" or w/e

So I don't see why the USAF need to spend so much on new planes, when they could just upgrade the old birds too. Especially in a time where an F-22 isn't really needed. It's not going to help you win the Iraq/Afghan war. More A-10's would.

America needs a strong Air Force, but we have the wrong Air Force. The service's leadership, military and civilian, displays greater loyalty to the defense industry than to our national defense (the contractors who supply the Air Force teem with retired generals). Today's Air Force clings to a fight-the-Soviets (or at least the Chinese) model with greater passion than yesteryear's Army clung to the horse cavalry. And Air Force leaders lie.

Last year, in war games with the Indian air force, our blue-suiters suffered embarrassing defeats. Our guys were arrogant and failed to think innovatively. We also had crucial high-tech gear turned off. The Indians used imaginative tactics - and overwhelmed us with numbers.

Our Air Force's response?

To insist the humiliation "proved" the need for the F/ A-22. Yet
purchasing that gold-plated piece of junk means that we could afford
still fewer aircraft in the future - we could be swarmed by other
countries with lower-tech, affordable planes, just as the Indians did it. Numbers matter. The Air Force doesn't need fewer, "more capable" aircraft. It needs more metal. But not the junk the contractors want to foist on the taxpayer and that ethically challenged senior officers want to buy. We need: A revitalized transport fleet: We rely on the workhorse C-130 for tactical lift, but the design is nearly a half-century old. The Army and Marines are told to make tomorrow's combat vehicles fit into the C- 130's tight hold. That's backward.

Next generation combat vehicles will be so systems rich that no amount of miniaturization will let them fit in a C-130. We need to design the fighting systems we need, then build planes to lift them. An affordable replacement for the great, but aging B-52 bomber: Those magnificent craft continue to outperform later, platinum-priced bombers, such as the Rube-Goldberg B-1 and the fragile B-2. We need a new, cost-efficient and robust bomber to replace B-52s nearly twice as old as their crews. A no-nonsense ground-attack aircraft to replace that splendid killing machine, the A-10. Ground-attack operations - especially in urban environments - are the wave of the future. The Air Force needs to stop dreaming of the missions it wants and face the missions we've got. A multi-role-fighter fleet that rejects Cold-War-era designs and starts afresh. Billions already spent are no reason to waste billions more on yesterday's concepts. Don't throw good money after bad. Our Air Force needs fresh thinking, adequate funding and an increase in the numbers of airplanes we can launch.

Everest E. Riccioni, who came to the Pentagon in 1969 as head of Development, Plans, and Analysis in Air Force R&D.
Everest Riccioni regularly takes part in POGO activities.

FEOS wrote:

The necessity is there...the cost is outrageous. The cost could certainly be less, but the capability is needed.

Kmarion wrote:

Parker wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Their both a waste of money.

agreed.
its not like our enemies can even get in the fucking air, much less compete with the latest technology.

I debated this out awhile ago. It's not as if we are ever going to be fighting Chinese over the Siberian forest.

Kmarion wrote:

Thats the point. The United States went in sleeping. It can't just be they were out performed.. we need a new toy.

America needs a strong Air Force, but we have the wrong Air Force. The service's leadership, military and civilian, displays greater loyalty to the defense industry than to our national defense (the contractors who supply the Air Force teem with retired generals). Today's Air Force clings to a fight-the-Soviets (or at least the Chinese) model with greater passion than yesteryear's Army clung to the horse cavalry. And Air Force leaders lie.

Last year, in war games with the Indian air force, our blue-suiters suffered embarrassing defeats. Our guys were arrogant and failed to think innovatively. We also had crucial high-tech gear turned off. The Indians used imaginative tactics - and overwhelmed us with numbers.

Our Air Force's response?

To insist the humiliation "proved" the need for the F/ A-22. Yet
purchasing that gold-plated piece of junk means that we could afford
still fewer aircraft in the future - we could be swarmed by other
countries with lower-tech, affordable planes, just as the Indians did it. Numbers matter. The Air Force doesn't need fewer, "more capable" aircraft. It needs more metal. But not the junk the contractors want to foist on the taxpayer and that ethically challenged senior officers want to buy. We need: A revitalized transport fleet: We rely on the workhorse C-130 for tactical lift, but the design is nearly a half-century old. The Army and Marines are told to make tomorrow's combat vehicles fit into the C- 130's tight hold. That's backward.

Next generation combat vehicles will be so systems rich that no amount of miniaturization will let them fit in a C-130. We need to design the fighting systems we need, then build planes to lift them. An affordable replacement for the great, but aging B-52 bomber: Those magnificent craft continue to outperform later, platinum-priced bombers, such as the Rube-Goldberg B-1 and the fragile B-2. We need a new, cost-efficient and robust bomber to replace B-52s nearly twice as old as their crews. A no-nonsense ground-attack aircraft to replace that splendid killing machine, the A-10. Ground-attack operations - especially in urban environments - are the wave of the future. The Air Force needs to stop dreaming of the missions it wants and face the missions we've got. A multi-role-fighter fleet that rejects Cold-War-era designs and starts afresh. Billions already spent are no reason to waste billions more on yesterday's concepts. Don't throw good money after bad. Our Air Force needs fresh thinking, adequate funding and an increase in the numbers of airplanes we can launch.

The debate is the necessity justifying the cost.. not the comparison.

Last edited by imortal (2008-04-29 16:55:51)

Kmarion wrote:

I did, that is when he started.. as in his experience began (and continues) probably before you were born.

Everest Riccioni regularly takes part in POGO activities.

Did you notice that part?

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Where is the necessity? Why is the capability needed?

What possible use is it? Give us a realistic hypothetical scenario in which the F-22 is necessary.

It is clearly an awesome bit of kit, but it is complete and absolute overkill for the foreseeable future and is not very cost effective.

Spot on.. like buying a a DX10 card to play Pong. Waste at it's finest.

Bert is one of the few here being realistic. The rest are inventing impossible scenarios to purchase an aircraft that gives us less of what we need and use.

Bertster7 wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

....

3+ decades present a LOT of possibilities.  The current legacy systems (F-15, F-16, etc.) will not be able to compete against generation 4.5 and 4.5+ fighters or a well-built air-defense system without taking significant losses.  The USAF would prefer to spend money than lose pilots and/or air dominance.

We like overkill.  It makes our job a lot safer when no one can realistically compete.

1. Russia? Really? Are you being serious?
2. China isn't going to be doing any of that. Even if they did, it wouldn't pose a threat. With Communism still firmly in place China is going to continue to stifle any spark of innovation, which means they couldn't finance anything long term and will remain dependant on Western innovation.
3. The F-22 is complete overkill for that.
4. HA! You mean like Baghdad? Yeah, I remember that being a serious problem in the past.....

You really aren't looking at this in a realistic way.

A) Boeing F-15 Eagle variants (Air Force, Japan, South Korea, Singapore). All will be matched or incrementally outclassed by the 'Flanker-2015'. While the latest AESA equipped F-15SG currently outclasses in service Su-27/30 by virtue of the AESA and newer avionics, this gap vanishes. In range payload, supersonic and agility performance, the 'Flanker-2015' outclasses the F-15.

B) Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (Navy/Marines). The AESA equipped F/A-18E/F has 4,000 lb more internal fuel over the F/A-18C, more pylons and better avionics, but retains the basic agility and performance limitations of the F/A-18C. It will be outclassed by the 'Flanker-2015' in all cardinal parameters, especially payload range. The author flew an F/A-18F in 2001, the aircraft being equipped with the APG-73 radar and then latest block of the DFCS software. The aircraft exhibited excellent high alpha manoeuvre performance and handling, competitive against reported Su-27 capabilities. Principal limitations observed were in clean supersonic acceleration, limited by the wing design, and radar footprint, limited by power aperture performance.

C) LM Joint Strike Fighter (Australia). The JSF will be outclassed in all cardinal parameters by the 'Flanker-2015'. The only clear advantage the JSF will hold will be in observables, with the caveat that Flanker support by lower band AWACS and GCI radars, and good FLIR/IRST capabilities will significantly narrow any margin of survivability produced by the JSF's reduced observables. While the JSF is being marketed as a Very Low Observable (VLO) design, its actual design indicates that at best it has potential for VLO performance in the forward hemisphere, and at best Low Observable capability in the aft hemisphere. The serrated circular engine nozzle is band limited in effect, and the absence of canopy frame serrations suggests that VLO performance in the forward hemisphere is borderline at best.

D) LM F-22A Raptor (Air Force). The F-22A is the only US combat aircraft with a clear margin of superiority over the Sukhoi in all cardinal parameters, with the additional advantage of excellent wideband all aspect stealth capability, and sustained supersonic cruise capability.

about the Sukhoi 27/30/35 wrote:

The first of these roles resulted in a design which was from the outset built to defeat the incumbent US Air Force F-15C. The Flanker B can match the speed, acceleration and climb performance of the F-15, exceed the instantaneous and sustained transonic turn performance of the F-15, exceed the radar detection range of the baseline APG-63 radar, and exceed the number of externally carried air-air missiles, compared to the F-15. The second of these roles resulted in the Flanker B carrying 22,000 lb of internal fuel, comparable to the fuel load of an F-15C or F-15E equipped with external Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT). The Flanker was also equipped with a Fly-By-Wire flight control system, an OLS-27 Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) / laser rangefinder package, to supplement the radar with a jam resistant fire control capability. The large pulse Doppler NIIP N-001/RPLK-27 Slot Back fire control radar, equipped with a 1 metre diameter Cassegrainian antenna – the largest used on any agile fighter, compared closely to the F-14's AWG-9, which was compromised by the supply of two Iranian F-14As after the collapse of the Pahlavi regime.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-04-29 18:48:01)