F-16.net

Ok there has been a lot of discussion about reducing and even dumping the F-35 in favour of more Raptors. Problem is people have been justifying this by picking away at bits of each aircraft and comparing them. I believe both aircraft are necessary, I even think perhaps the F-35 more but the two aircraft have different purposes as well as sharing some.

V/STOL

The F-35B is a V/STOL aircraft, currently the only V/STOL fighter/attack aircraft in operation with the US and allies is the Harrier. The Harrier has proven itself time and time again but the principle design is almost 40 years old, it is only capable of sub-sonic flight and although the aircraft has been updated many times it has come to the point where a new airframe is needed. A new super-sonic stealth fighter with V/STOL capabilities will be greatly welcomed by the USMC and the USAF. I don't remember the F-22 having V/STOL capabilities. The Harrier once again showed the importance of V/STOL in Afghanistan, emphasizing the importance of V/STOL to the USAF.

USN/USMC

The F-35 B & C variants unlike the F-22 can operate from aircraft carriers. So once again having an aircraft with good stealth and combat capabilities in your navy is going to increase the capability of the Navy as a whole. The Navy and USMC are a rapid deployment force, if an overseas conflict occurs they will most likely be the first there, if they need to take action before the air force arrive they need the capability to do so. Stealth will help the pilots survive through anti-air installations or any other radar guided threats, and a good combat capability will give them a good offensive strength. Look at the Falklands War, the whole war was conducted from a British task force 8,000 miles from home.

Air dominance

Ok bring it back to the Raptor, this was the primary purpose of the Raptor and lets face it, its probably the best at it or at least one of the best. So future campaigns that require air dominance, we have the Raptor to take care of that one. But after air dominance is achieved the Raptors combat advantage over the F-35 isn't going to change things in terms of ground support etc. And the F-35 is no pup when it comes to combat, so the F-35 and F-22 will compliment each other nicely there.

USAF

As far as I can see the F-35 will be the bulk of the force, and the F-22 will be the cream. Sounds a good organistation to me, the F-22 was conceived in the Cold war era, but thats over now so that why you have seen a reduction in the F-22 numbers. The F-35 was produced mostly from the R&D of the Raptor, its has a cheaper unit cost. Although its combat capability isn't as good as the Raptor, it still has an excellent combat capability. Apart from combat, the Raptor isn't superior to the F-35, and with the F-35 having advantages the Raptor doesn't have (described above) not to mention improved avionics (which will probably end up in the F-22) it is required just as much as the F-22. I don't see why more F-22's are needed and less F-35's.

Well please leave your comments and one other thing:

Please no Troll accusations, if you believe someone is a troll then ignore them and don't feed, I think others can decide on their own if they think a particular person is a troll without you having to post it.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

Besides the fact that this subject has been beaten to death, I'll reply.

The cold war is over, who cares. The plane was designed (during the cold war, but who cares) as a next generation fighter to counter anything out there. It has met its concept requirement. The 15's need replacement. Anyone who says the Raptor isn't required hasn't seen 15's being gutted for spare parts. Anyone who says the Raptor is too expensive is factoring in R&D costs that arn't supposed to be factored into the equation...its already been spent.

I'd say the same about the F-35. The aircraft will bring a level of stealth to the arena of the mid-range light-weight fighters they've never had before.

I say we need them both. They give us an unfair advantage and thats just how we want to operate.

-Check

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Apart from combat, the Raptor isn't superior to the F-35...

Well, apart from combat, a whole fleet of used Cessna 172's would fill the role as well - and be a whole lot cheaper, but combat is what we're talking about here. As much as we like to see them, the aircraft are not built for airshows or happily flying around in peacetime, they are made for combat where it's a kill or be killed, no prizes for second place game.

I want to put our pilots in THE best aircraft out there and give them the best training that there is, and I don't want it to even be close. A kill to loss rate of 5 to 1, while considered good in some previous conflicts, is totally unacceptable if we can make it 100 to 0.

To your points:
V/STOL While it's good for the Marines, it isn't the Air Force's game. The Harrier is and always has been primarily an attack aircraft (with apologies to the final RN F/A.2's, although they were hardly 'air dominance' aircraft). It would be difficult to design an aircraft to dominate air combat with the limitations (weight and design) that V/STOL require.

USN/USMC If the Navy/Marines (other than the V/STOL capability) had the opportunity to purchase a navalized F-22, rather than Super Hornets of F-35's, I'll bet they would.

Air Dominance The best.

USAF The AF has used a high/low mix for years (F-15A/C vs. F-16) all we are discussing is the mix. I defiantly do not agree with dumping the F-35, our legacy jets are getting old, both in metal and in design. But I wouldn't mid seeing a higher 'high' mix, than low, especially when you compare the capabilities of the aircraft. For example, the Eagle is a fighter - and a damn good one - to the F-16's bomber. The F-22 has the capability to do startlingly well in both arenas and as I said above I'd rather the mix be weighted to the high.

Mike

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 07, 2006 Posts: 45 Status: Offline

We do need both. They need a 2-seat dedicated Wild Weasel platform for the F-22 or the F-35 as well.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Ok there has been a lot of discussion about reducing and even dumping the F-35 in favour of more Raptors. Problem is people have been justifying this by picking away at bits of each aircraft and comparing them. I believe both aircraft are necessary, I even think perhaps the F-35 more but the two aircraft have different purposes as well as sharing some.

Your argument though nicely formulated is analagous to the question of:
do you we need more automatic combat rifles or do we need more .45 side arms? STOVL has never mattered in any skirmish.... It's neat, I'll say that.
But to gum a FIGHTERS performance due to one relativlely small order of STOVL airframes is ridicuous. We NEED more 22's than 35s. Keep in mind the "fear factor" of the other guy. Would like more 22's or 35s? Obviously they want us to have more 35's and hence we NEED more 22's.

Elite 2K Joined: May 13, 2004 Posts: 2945 Location: Utah

I need dancing grils and beer...the more the merrier, cost is no object Smile

All I can carry (like a six pack)...

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 Posts: 77 Status: Offline

flibbityfoxtrot13.7,

Exactly what part do u not get?

1. JSF is a replacement for F-16,F-18,A-10, and Harrier. F-22 is replacement for F-15. Period. Like it or not, the hi/lo mix is here to stay. I'm sure if this thread was posted during the era of the F-15, you would be saying the same thing about the F-16 (THE most successful fighter program ever and still the BENCHMARK aircraft that others are judged by).

2. F-22 & JSF are each designed for DIFFERENT reasons. Different flight regimes,different missions. Its like saying why isn't the Army buying more Apaches than Blackhawks. You are acting like the JSF is a replacement for the F-22 itself RETARD. If you don't like F-22 numbers, talk to GAO or Rumsfeld, but don't blame JSF for its low numbers. I never heard that the F-22 was a replacement for anything but the F-15.

3. Your LO excuse is VERY lame. First, stealth is not the be all and end all, its a useful tool. Second, its predominate use will always be during the first days of any war until air dominance is achieved. Once this is done and air threats are gone, stealth is no longer the requirement it was, and I GUARANTEE you JSF's will be hanging external stores (once again doing the job it was designed to do in the first place). This is not what F-22 was designed for.

4. Take a look at current events. Almost all missions now and in the future in the middle east will be A2G, because there is no threat in the air. What the hell is supercruise gonna contribute to that. Supercruise will drop loiter time, hence shorten mission time. I've been in this field since the first Gulf War, and there has practically been no air war. And even then (1st Gulf War), Apaches and B-52's were intimdating enough to make Republican Guard troops give up, let alone what else we had. Supercruise and stealth have there place indeed, but you can't win wars on it. It s always gonna end on the ground eventually.

5. There was never a requirement for JSF to be something other than it is. The f-16 already taxes the limits of pilot tolerances. JSF is an EVOLUTION of this.

You keep playing armchair quaterback. Obviously its what you are best at.

Hmmmm rather aggressive, you seem to have completely misunderstood my post. Did I say the F-35 is better than the Raptor anywhere in that thread? It would be appreciated if you didn't include insults either.

My thread is justifying the F-35, a lot of people seem to want it gone. If you note my thread says 'Does the US...' and not the USAF. So I'm justifying the JSF program for the US military. The Raptor is clearly just for the air force, the Navy and USMC have no use for it as it cannot take off from a deck. V/STOL is crucial, and must not be neglected. This is why the JSF has V/STOL capabilities to replace the the old Harrier.

Quote:

F-22 & JSF are each designed for DIFFERENT reasons. Different flight regimes,different missions. Its like saying why isn't the Army buying more Apaches than Blackhawks. You are acting like the JSF is a replacement for the F-22 itself RETARD

Retard? Me? Well what you said there is what I have said in my third sentance. Can you not read?

In fact all you have done in your post, is picked bits of mine and commented on them negatively neglecting what I have said in the rest of my post. In fact I don't think you have even read my post properly. If your going to reply with an argument, at least reply in a respectful way.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Hmmmm rather aggressive, you seem to have completely misunderstood my post. Did I say the F-35 is better than the Raptor anywhere in that thread? It would be appreciated if you didn't include insults either.

My thread is justifying the F-35, a lot of people seem to want it gone. If you note my thread says 'Does the US...' and not the USAF. So I'm justifying the JSF program for the US military. The Raptor is clearly just for the air force, the Navy and USMC have no use for it as it cannot take off from a deck. V/STOL is crucial, and must not be neglected. This is why the JSF has V/STOL capabilities to replace the the old Harrier.

Quote:

F-22 & JSF are each designed for DIFFERENT reasons. Different flight regimes,different missions. Its like saying why isn't the Army buying more Apaches than Blackhawks. You are acting like the JSF is a replacement for the F-22 itself RETARD

Retard? Me? Well what you said there is what I have said in my third sentance. Can you not read?

In fact all you have done in your post, is picked bits of mine and commented on them negatively neglecting what I have said in the rest of my post. In fact I don't think you have even read my post properly. If your going to reply with an argument, at least reply in a respectful way.

Let's get back to the question at hand, after all this is a f o r u m, and ie a tool for open discussion (w/o name calling):

JSF is clearly more a requirement for the US Marines as the F-22 can do everything that the JSF does and will do it better. The F-22 CAN carry the fight behind enemy 'lines' and survive due to its combo of some LO capability and it's ability to supercruise. Supercruise is a game changer, period. Supercruise reduces the "envelope" of the enemies SAMs and it's AAMs - This is something that the JSF lacks in spades. Even when/if radar LO is cracked the 22 has going for it the fact that it is a born and bred fighter with lots of speed. JSF.... can't say the same thing about her.

Clearly the JSF is not a totally LO aircraft in the same league as the F-117 or B-2, or even the F-22. JSF clearly is not an all aspect LO aircraft. Everyone talks about LO uo the ying-yang, but the truth is, is that LO depends on what view you're looking at said a/c with whatever radar.... Frontal RCS reductions may be there on the JSF, but clearly not too much reduction from the rear aspect...

I cant believe what I've read in these posts today about supercrusie being not important because it limits flight time/loiter time. Oh gimme a break!
Just because a plane CAN supercruise does not therefore mean that it spends it's entire sortie buzzing around at 50K ft at M1.9 or whatever. Supercruise should have been inherent in every single fighter design post ATF. I am litterally shocked that the US DOD has whipped up a relatively small aircraft with 45+ thousand pounds of thrust, and it cannot keep up with the F-22 in a jogging sprint.

Do we need the JSF? I'm sure that at minimum it will be able to drop her 2K pounderd with pinpoint accuracy. But then again an F-22 can droper more (lighter) bombs on said target with the same accuracy from greater distance due to her ability to supercrusie. Can't say that about JSF.

F-22 cannot operate from a carrier and that is my whole disdain for the original ATF program. The DOD should have called for a fighter with the 22's performance that with some mods to the wings and gear would have been able to fill in for the Tomcats.

I for one am x-ing my fingers that the JSF turns out to be the F-111 of the 21st century.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

V/STOL is crucial, and must not be neglected. This is why the JSF has V/STOL capabilities to replace the the old Harrier.

V/STOL is nice to have, but not 'crucial'. The Harrier is a nice, although limited, asset for the Marines, but it comes up lacking even in comparison with the Corps early 'conventional' Hornets (payload, range, speed, manuverability...)

Mike

V/STOL is crucial! The Raptor is said to have been designed so it is prepared for all possible threats. Well if your going to apply that to an aircraft you need to apply it to your military. What happens when operating from an airfield that has a short/appalling/damaged runway surface? V/STOL is the saviour there, an example? Well I can give you a current one; Afghanistan. Afghanistan has shown the importance of V/STOL once again affirming its importance in an air force. The Harrier has proved itself time and time again which is why its still in service. V/STOL gives you a hell of a lot flexibility which is what a modern military needs.

However as you have mentioned it has drawbacks, and the main one is the speed. The killer for the Harrier as an A2A combat platform is its max speed only being sub-sonic. Originally Hawker-Siddeley had a super-sonic V/STOL fighter jet known as the P.1154, but because of budget cuts (something that has plagued British Aerospace industry for decades), the program was dropped. The Harrier took over. Other drawbacks you mentioned apply too (except maneuverability, the Harrier happens to be very maneuverable), so isn't it time for a replacement? Thats where the F-35 comes in.

Not only is V/STOL needed for a compromised airfield situation, but the USMC need it so it can operate from their smaller carriers. USMC are very important - Rapid deployment - don't forget that. Also the Navy needs a replacement and the F-35C is designed to operate from carriers. I'm sure you can agree the F-35 is a superior platform to the F/A-18.

Also the F-35 will be more successful in export sales than the F-22 (because of cost and security measures associated with the F-22), and as the F-35 was conceived from the F-22 R&D its brining back money. The F-35 variants produce a fighter jet that is very versatile, effective and can sell on an international scale.

Oh and just in case someone replies here again not reading what I have said, I'm justifying why the F-35 is needed and not saying its better that the F-22.

cywolf32 wrote:

4. Take a look at current events. Almost all missions now and in the future in the middle east will be A2G, because there is no threat in the air. What the hell is supercruise gonna contribute to that. Supercruise will drop loiter time, hence shorten mission time. I've been in this field since the first Gulf War, and there has practically been no air war. And even then (1st Gulf War), Apaches and B-52's were intimdating enough to make Republican Guard troops give up, let alone what else we had. Supercruise and stealth have there place indeed, but you can't win wars on it. It s always gonna end on the ground eventually.

5. There was never a requirement for JSF to be something other than it is. The f-16 already taxes the limits of pilot tolerances. JSF is an EVOLUTION of this.

4) Just because the recent "wars" have been against lo-tech nations, does not predicate that *all* future engagements will be the same one-sided air campaigns. That would be the LARGEST mistake ever on behalf of the DoD to design it's future air power equipment around 2 skirmishes which never even had adequately trained pilots. Can you state factually (or anyone) that all future engagements are going to be against Bosnia/Iraq type nations? No way, no how.

5) If the F-35 were an evolution over the F-16 she would be able to do more than fit her pilots with fanciest helmet/cockpit ever built. The F-16 (an a/c that the AF did not even want) was/is in many ways better than the F-15. With the F-35, it is in every way possible less capable than the F-22 (except for the fancy helmet). Thus, the F-35 program cannot be compared with the F-16 program. The F-35 is not faster than the F-22. The F-35 is not better at a2a than the F-22. The F-35 cannot toss the same bombs out of her weapons bays at greater distances than the F-22 (due to the F-22 being able to do so at supersonic speed). The F-35 cannot fight a2a supersonically better than the F-22. In every way possible, the F-35 is less capable than the F-22. The F-35 cannot carry the fight behind enemy lines as well as can the F-22. So why buy it? All I can say for the F-35 is that with 45K lbs of thrust that with a partial fuel load she may be able to out accellerate an F-16...... But she won't be any fast in top end speed or in cruise speed.

About the only thing that I can see the F-35 does or will do better than the F-22 is the CAS missions in which you're flying close and slow to friendly troops and picking off laser designated targets. That's about all I can see the F-35 has going for it. But to spend 100's of billions on an a/c for *just* that one mission...... What a waste of money when new build F-16s and F-18s can do that role all day long. What a waste of money given the fact that we're only able to "afford" 183 F-22s.

I also find it *very* interesting that when someone asks for logical arguments for purchasing a less capable airfram than what we already have in production that many on this site simply resort to name calling: Troll, Retard, ect ect...

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

cywolf32 wrote:

I've been in this field since the first Gulf War, and there has practically been no air war. And even then (1st Gulf War), Apaches and B-52's were intimdating enough to make Republican Guard troops give up, let alone what else we had. Supercruise and stealth have there place indeed, but you can't win wars on it. It s always gonna end on the ground eventually.

The last thing you want to do is get ready to fight the previous war. Just because Iraq had an incompitant air force does not mean that China will, or Iran, or Russia. And don't even bother with "we're all buddies now" because that doesn't mean we will be tomorrow. That said, we need both. We'll never be able to buy enough F-22s to replace everything and as you pointed out air-to-ground is a VERY distant second-place role for it. F-16s, F/A-18s, and Harriers won't last forever and we're going to need something to fill those roles in numbers we can afford and that is the F-35.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

MKopack wrote:

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

V/STOL is crucial, and must not be neglected. This is why the JSF has V/STOL capabilities to replace the the old Harrier.

V/STOL is nice to have, but not 'crucial'. The Harrier is a nice, although limited, asset for the Marines, but it comes up lacking even in comparison with the Corps early 'conventional' Hornets (payload, range, speed, manuverability...)

Mike

What cannot be overstated is that with STOVL you have at last count 12 and counting amphibious assault ships that can be used for fixed wing operations in addition to your traditional carriers. That goes away without STOVL.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Does the US need the F-22 or the F-35 or Both?