BF2S Forums F22 vs F35 what is the difference

mcminty wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

This debate makes me cry.

Well considering the original topic was regarding AUSTRALIA'S AIR FORCE, debating and head bashing over replacing weapons systems that our Air Force doesn't even have is stupid and pointless.

Well, the actual original question was what was the difference between the F35 and the F22.  This could have been a completely technical argument until people started to add their opinions as to whether anything was justified, or anything else.

EDIT:  Blame Dilbert_x and Kmarion.

Last edited by imortal (2008-04-29 19:39:43)

The F-22 makes me skeet.

imortal wrote:

What about the C-19?  It is being used, currently.  I thought it was slated to replace the C-130.

EDIT:  As FEOS pointed out to me, it is the C-17.  oops, my bad.

Side note: I saw the AC-130 Spooky last summer. The week before it was on future weapons.
It was pretty kick ass.




others you guys will recognize..









<--A real workhorse

A couple weeks later three of them showed up on the movie Transformers..lol

imortal wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

imortal wrote:

What about the C-19?  It is being used, currently.  I thought it was slated to replace the C-130.

EDIT:  As FEOS pointed out to me, it is the C-17.  oops, my bad.

Side note: I saw the AC-130 Spooky last summer. The week before it was on future weapons.
It was pretty kick ass.

No, THIS is cool: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 6653735555

Video from AC 130 in Afghanastan, back in '03 or so.

I remember that..

No THIS is cool..



lol.. hollywood

Its a shame that the US wont sell the F22 overseas. Wiki has references to 3 countries that were interested in buying them. It could be a massive export earner for the US even if they dumbed down the technology in the Raptor for foreign use. That aside, looks like the JSF will do the job pretty well for OZ (whenever it turns up).

RAIMIUS wrote:

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.

You are arguing that the F-22 shouldn't be built because there COULD NOT be a credible threat to US air superiority in the next 20-40 years. 
I'd like to borrow your crystal ball, because I cannot accurately predict how the world will be several decades from now.

You know that 500+ Flanker fleet...It should be complete in the 2010-2015 timeframe.  That's 2 to 7 years!

20-40 years is not a very long time. You seem to think the world is going to drastically change in that timeframe. It is exceptionally unlikely to, not impossible, just unlikely. The fact is that any global power that could pose a threat to the US will be deeply tied to them economically. As long as this remains the case, which it is very likely to (unless the US falls from superpower status and slips into a deep, deep recession (in which case maintaining a fleet of Raptors would become virtually impossible) or the power that poses a threat loosens economic ties to the US (and allies) to such an extent that they could mount some form of attack, which neither Russia or China could do) there is no credible threat.

So, with Russia and China firmly out of the picture for at least 50 years and Europe firmly allied to the US who is there to pose an aerial threat?

It's not so much a military question as an economic one and long term economic trends are moderately predictable.

*edit*
I'll try and clear up why Russia and China can't be a threat to the US, I don't think I explained fully enough earlier:

China:

China develop nothing. They are the factory of the world. They build stuff that is designed in Europe and the US. Without the income they get from US/EU manufacturing contracts then China have a really shit economy. Social trends have shown that under Communist governments people are not driven enough to come up with good ideas and therefore good designs for products. Even if the Communist regime were to fall, which it looks in no danger of doing, it would take many years for Chinese designers to get good at designing stuff. Therefore China's economy is in the hands of the Europeans and Americans.
If China were to attack the US, then they would go bankrupt. Losing the money that is pumped into their country from the West would utterly fuck them over. This is why it will not happen until China escape from their economic dependence on the US and EU, which will not happen any time soon.

Russia:

Russia have substantially less economic dependence than China, though more than 50% of trade with Russia is to the EU (which would be unlikely to continue since most of Europe would aid the US through NATO). Even taking into account Russia's fast economic growth and massive energy resources, the Russian government would be extremely foolish to piss off NATO, since that would almost certainly plunge their economy back into the state it was in during the Cold War.

Russia & China:

MAD.

End of story.



The F-22 is a pointless, very fancy toy. There is absolutely no call for it. Anyone with an airforce that could pose any sort of threat to the USAF has a large nuclear arsenal. No one wants to go starting a nuclear war. Therefore it won't happen. Therefore the F-22 is a waste of money.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-04-30 11:11:13)

GuliblGuy wrote:

The F35 is cheaper because all of the electronics/avionics that cost so much to develop for the F22 had already been paid for by the F22 program.  They just dumped them into the F35 and the price tag looks lower.

Yeah, that and the development costs were split between at least 3 companies from different countries and several countries are major development partners. Which is a sensible way of developing such expensive things, split the cost with your allies - then everyone wins. It costs you less and your allies get great kit meaning they can be of more use to you if things get bad.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-04-30 11:18:45)

@bertster
20-40 years is NOT a long time?

What history books are you reading? In a 40 year span we had 2 World Wars and innumerable smaller conflicts totaling over 100 million dead.

Last edited by Stubbee (2008-04-30 12:23:13)

Commie Killer wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

@bertster
20-40 years is NOT a long time?

What history books are you reading? In a 40 year span we had 2 World Wars and innumerable smaller conflicts totaling over 100 million dead.

40 Years ago we were in Vietnam. The Cold War ended less then 20 years ago... What history book are you reading?!?

I believe he was pointing out that two world wars occurred within a 40 year (actually 30 year) span (1914-1945). Regardless, look at the massive changes in the world situation since 1968...particularly with regard to aircraft technology.

Bert: Discounting Russia and China as emerging competitors (and thus, possible threats) is remarkably short-sighted. Additionally, to say China can't produce anything indigenously is simply wrong.

BF2's bane

J-17

5th Gen Fighter

So...yeah. China can't develop anything we need to be able to counter.

As for Russia:

4.5 Gen Fighters
Su-30
Su-35
Su-37

5th Gen Fighter

Keep in mind the F-15C is a 4th Gen fighter, on par with the Su-27.

And they're selling these like hotcakes.

Decent list of various generations of fighter aircraft.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-30 18:37:13)

Bertster7 wrote:

I'm not talking about military innovation. I'm talking about products. Products drive economies. No one buys Chinese products because they're utter shit. The Chinese recognise this problem. This is why they often try to buy up foreign companies to use their names hoping it will get them a foothold in Western markets, Rover being an excellent example.

The reason neither is a threat is because of ECONOMIC ties (and also the obvious nuclear implications any conflict between these powers would lead to). Not because they can't manufacture military tech.

You really aren't listening to the arguments being presented. Which have nothing to do with military technology whatsoever.

China is not building "utter shit" products.  Sure, they make TONS of simple products, but that does not exclude them from higher technology production.  As it is, they import a lot of what they need, reverse engineer it, then mass produce whatever product they want.  They have the option to either create something themselves or simply buy it.  Russia is very happy to sell off a lot of its technologies.

China is also attempting to diversify its export customers.  They know they are economically tied to the US, and they are slowly changing that.

China is currently positioning itself as the dominant regional power.  That concerns the US, since we are the only current superpower...especially considering our pseudo-support for Taiwan.

We are far from being enemies, but the possibility weighs heavily on the military's mind.  We don't like being caught off-guard.  It usually means we lose friends and endanger our country.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-05-01 14:04:41)

The real battle is economic.. don't kid yourself. A war with China will be asymmetrical. Or the end of us all.

Kmarion wrote:

The real battle is economic.. don't kid yourself. A war with China will be asymmetrical. Or the end of us all.

I never said it wasn't. I'm looking at it from the perspective of the necessity of the F22, not the nature of the "long war" with China. I wouldn't necessarily call the economic situation "warfare" but it is clearly a key national interest issue, as China is using the economic aspect of DIME (diplomacy, information, military, economy) to their advantage.

But the Treasury, Commerce, and State departments don't determine military requirements...they work on the D and E pieces. The F-22 is about the "M" in DIME. And at least one aspect of China's asymmetric threat is also military in nature. In a military confrontation, they would go with both the overmatch and asymmetric strategies. The F-22 is intended to mitigate the overmatch threat, while other efforts are under way to mitigate the asymmetric threat (and not just from China).