Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 885 Status: Offline

elp wrote:

There have already been comments out there for a few years that the height/speed combo I mentioned for the F-22 in a AMRAAM shot could give up to a 50% increase in AMRAAM range.

Earlier this year, F-22 chief test pilot Paul Metz confirmed that the F-22's speed and altitude capability acts as a booster stage for the common-or-garden AMRAAM. At M1.5 and at greater altitude than the target (the F-22 has a very fast climb rate and a service ceiling well above 50,000ft), AMRAAM's range is 50% greater than is the case in a subsonic, same-altitude launch.

As I have said, it is not F-22 speed/height or supercruise speed/height. It is simply speed and height -- how you get there and with what is completely irrelevant. As far as speed is concerned, we know that the F-35 will get to F-22's supercruise speeds using its afterburner. It won't get to F-22's afterburner speeds which is probably >M2, but how much is unknown and depends on which unofficial speculation you what to believe. As far as altitude is concerned, you can count on the F-35 -- given its engine type, lifting surface and control surface sizes to be better than an F-16 which is to say >55,000 ft. How much better we don't know. But let's put it this way, how much do you think perhaps Mach 0.4 in dash speed (say M2.2 vs 1.8 ) and perhaps an additional 10,000 ft will do to missile range?

Before you discount F-35 performance, it is important that we understand that it is actually very good except when you compare it to the F-22. Thrust to weight for instance is better than an SU-30. In combat configuration, the internal weapons storage also allows it to incur little if any drag penalty -- something which always impede 4th generation fighters from realizing their clean performance potential. Range is terrific as is sensors or payload. The F-35 is very similar to the F-22 in overall configuration. The main difference is that it is 68% as much aircraft (by est. structural mass) with about 61% as much thrust (by official engine stats). This is why there is very good reasons to believe that the F-35's performance is currently very understated.

In a recent comment, F-35 PEO Gen C Davis described "Mach 0.8, 23,000 ft and 16 degree AoA" as roughly 40% of the flight envelope. I'll let you infer what you want from it.

Let me say this again. NOBODY is saying that the F-35 is better or as good as the F-22 in prosecuting Air Superiority. The argument is that this is a good enough platform and that it is a much better value than the F-22 as a product if it is indeed realized at a unit cost of $48.5 million.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

dwightlooi wrote:

elp wrote:

There have already been comments out there for a few years that the height/speed combo I mentioned for the F-22 in a AMRAAM shot could give up to a 50% increase in AMRAAM range.

Earlier this year, F-22 chief test pilot Paul Metz confirmed that the F-22's speed and altitude capability acts as a booster stage for the common-or-garden AMRAAM. At M1.5 and at greater altitude than the target (the F-22 has a very fast climb rate and a service ceiling well above 50,000ft), AMRAAM's range is 50% greater than is the case in a subsonic, same-altitude launch.

As I have said, it is not F-22 speed/height or supercruise speed/height. It is simply speed and height -- how you get there and with what is completely irrelevant. As far as speed is concerned, we know that the F-35 will get to F-22's supercruise speeds using its afterburner. It won't get to F-22's afterburner speeds which is probably >M2, but how much is unknown and depends on which unofficial speculation you what to believe. As far as altitude is concerned, you can count on the F-35 -- given its engine type, lifting surface and control surface sizes to be better than an F-16 which is to say >55,000 ft. How much better we don't know. But let's put it this way, how much do you think perhaps Mach 0.4 in dash speed (say M2.2 vs 1.8 ) and perhaps an additional 10,000 ft will do to missile range?

Before you discount F-35 performance, it is important that we understand that it is actually very good except when you compare it to the F-22. Thrust to weight for instance is better than an SU-30. In combat configuration, the internal weapons storage also allows it to incur little if any drag penalty -- something which always impede 4th generation fighters from realizing their clean performance potential. Range is terrific as is sensors or payload. The F-35 is very similar to the F-22 in overall configuration. The main difference is that it is 68% as much aircraft (by est. structural mass) with about 61% as much thrust (by official engine stats). This is why there is very good reasons to believe that the F-35's performance is currently very understated.

In a recent comment, F-35 PEO Gen C Davis described "Mach 0.8, 23,000 ft and 16 degree AoA" as roughly 40% of the flight envelope. I'll let you infer what you want from it.

Let me say this again. NOBODY is saying that the F-35 is better or as good as the F-22 in prosecuting Air Superiority. The argument is that this is a good enough platform and that it is a much better value than the F-22 as a product if it is indeed realized at a unit cost of $48.5 million.

I can't understand dwightlooi's reply :
Assuming that more speed and height deliver a kinematic advantage in BVR engagements, the Raptor is simply in advantage over the Lithening II since it's speed and ceiling is higher in both mil power or afterburner cruise, stop!

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 885 Status: Offline

Quote:

I can't understand dwightlooi's reply :
Assuming that more speed and height deliver a kinematic advantage in BVR engagements, the Raptor is simply in advantage over the Lithening II since it's speed and ceiling is higher in both mil power or afterburner cruise, stop!

Of course it does. The question is how much of a difference it amounts to. If you believe that it is anywhere near 50% over the F-35 you are kidding yourself. The AMRAAM is a Mach 4~4.5 missile. If you launch it at Mach 1.8 vs say Mach 2.2 you may at best get Mach 0.1~0.2 more in terms of burn out speed (I am sorry it is not additive). The operational altitude difference between the two aircrafts is also rather small compared to the range of altitude the target may be at. In any case, both aircrafts will have the ability -- through stealth -- to launch within the kinematic envelope of the missile while being relatively safe from detection by the enemy and that is what really counts. If for instance the F-22 can fire on an SU at 70km with a good expectation of a kill whereas the F-35 can do so at 65km does it really matter that much given that the SU's radar can detect neither aircraft beyond about 18km?

dwightlooi wrote:

Quote:

I can't understand dwightlooi's reply :
Assuming that more speed and height deliver a kinematic advantage in BVR engagements, the Raptor is simply in advantage over the Lithening II since it's speed and ceiling is higher in both mil power or afterburner cruise, stop!

Of course it does. The question is how much of a difference it amounts to. If you believe that it is anywhere near 50% over the F-35 you are kidding yourself. The AMRAAM is a Mach 4~4.5 missile. If you launch it at Mach 1.8 vs say Mach 2.2 you may at best get Mach 0.1~0.2 more in terms of burn out speed (I am sorry it is not additive). The operational altitude difference between the two aircrafts is also rather small compared to the range of altitude the target may be at. In any case, both aircrafts will have the ability -- through stealth -- to launch within the kinematic envelope of the missile while being relatively safe from detection by the enemy and that is what really counts. If for instance the F-22 can fire on an SU at 70km with a good expectation of a kill whereas the F-35 can do so at 65km does it really matter that much given that the SU's radar can detect neither aircraft beyond about 18km?

1. What is your source for F-35 altitude?
2. What is the max altitude for the F-35 approval that doesn't require a p-suit?
3. What is your souce for F-35 supercruise speed?
4. Where did you get the figure ..... that the advantage I spoke of with a enhanced range AMRAAM/F-22 shot high/fast and mentioned with a link source .... is compariable to F-22 firing at 70km and F-35 firing at 65km?
5 What radar variant of what SU and where did the 18km figure come from?

Veteran Joined: Mar 10, 2006 Posts: 338 Status: Offline

i think he was throwing out examples, but whiel the numbers are likely off the TREND he was trying to put out comes across loud and clear. I swear that no one listens to anyones numbers unless they say "I fly/flew/designed the dang thing." He also never stated the F-35 as supercruising, but using an afterburner dash. Speed is speed, the AMRAAM doesnt care about engine setting.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 885 Status: Offline

elp wrote:

1. What is your source for F-35 altitude?
2. What is the max altitude for the F-35 approval that doesn't require a p-suit?
3. What is your souce for F-35 supercruise speed?
4. Where did you get the figure ..... that the advantage I spoke of with a enhanced range AMRAAM/F-22 shot high/fast and mentioned with a link source .... is compariable to F-22 firing at 70km and F-35 firing at 65km?
5 What radar variant of what SU and where did the 18km figure come from?

(1) The F-16's operational ceiling is officially >50,000 ft and commonly cited at ~55,000 ft. The F-35A has a lower wing loading, an engine with a significantly more overpowered core for its thrust rating than the F100 and significantly larger control surfaces. There is not one reason to believe that the ceiling will not be as high or higher.

(2) The attitude at which the F-35 can fly at without a pressure suit is no different from that of the F-22 which also does not have a pressure suit. The cabin pressurization system of both aircrafts are similar. There is no greater or lesser pressure suit issues, period, for both aircrafts.

(3) I never said the F-35 will supercruise in the previous argument. I said that there is no difference between Mach 1.7 w/afterburner and Mach 1.7 supercruise as far as the missile is concerned. The F-35, though, MAY be able to supercruise given that it is 68% the F-22's size/weight, has 61% the thrust and has similarly very clean aerodynamics. The numbers do not make it likely that one is M1.7 cruise whereas the other is Mach 0.95. However, I think it is safe to say that the F-35 will not go M1.7 w/o burners. If it does supercruise, my best guess is that it MAY go between Mach 1.1 & 1.4. But we don't know for sure at this time; we'll find out in due time.

(4) I was making the assertion that a Mach 1.7~1.8 release vs a Mach 2.1~2.2 release and/or a 65000 ft release vs a 55000ft release will yield LESS than a 10% increase in range and probably less than a M0.2 difference in burn out speed for the missile. 65 and 70 km are similar numeric examples to illustrate the percentage difference. There is no logical or reasonable argument to support an assertion that a Mach 0.4 difference in release speed for a Mach 4~4.5 missile at a SLIGHTLY higher altitudes will yield a 50% increase in range. That is ridiculous no matter how you cut it.

(5) It is not unreasonable to assume that the SU's best radar like the N011-M BARS has an ~140km range against an F-16 sized target (1.5 sq-m RCS). Actually, some will say that I am being generous here. A 0.0014 sq-m class target like the F-35 will be detectable at roughly 1/8th the range -- 1/2 per 10 times reduction in RCS, hence 1000 times smaller equates roughly to 1/2*1/2*1/2 or 1/8. 1/8th of ~140 km = ~17.5 km. The F-22 is slightly lower in RCS, but in both cases the effective range of the enemy's radar is likely to be way below the effective launch envelope of the AMRAAM which was the point.

Elite Joined: May 29, 2006 Posts: 640 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

elp wrote:

1. What is your source for F-35 altitude?
2. What is the max altitude for the F-35 approval that doesn't require a p-suit?
3. What is your souce for F-35 supercruise speed?
4. Where did you get the figure ..... that the advantage I spoke of with a enhanced range AMRAAM/F-22 shot high/fast and mentioned with a link source .... is compariable to F-22 firing at 70km and F-35 firing at 65km?
5 What radar variant of what SU and where did the 18km figure come from?

(1) The F-16's operational ceiling is officially >50,000 ft and commonly cited at ~55,000 ft. The F-35A has a lower wing loading, an engine with a significantly more overpowered core for its thrust rating than the F100 and significantly larger control surfaces. There is not one reason to believe that the ceiling will not be as high or higher.

(2) The attitude at which the F-35 can fly at without a pressure suit is no different from that of the F-22 which also does not have a pressure suit. The cabin pressurization system of both aircrafts are similar. There is no greater or lesser pressure suit issues, period, for both aircrafts.

(3) I never said the F-35 will supercruise in the previous argument. I said that there is no difference between Mach 1.7 w/afterburner and Mach 1.7 supercruise as far as the missile is concerned. The F-35, though, MAY be able to supercruise given that it is 68% the F-22's size/weight, has 61% the thrust and has similarly very clean aerodynamics. The numbers do not make it likely that one is M1.7 cruise whereas the other is Mach 0.95. However, I think it is safe to say that the F-35 will not go M1.7 w/o burners. If it does supercruise, my best guess is that it MAY go between Mach 1.1 & 1.4. But we don't know for sure at this time; we'll find out in due time.

(4) I was making the assertion that a Mach 1.7~1.8 release vs a Mach 2.1~2.2 release and/or a 65000 ft release vs a 55000ft release will yield LESS than a 10% increase in range and probably less than a M0.2 difference in burn out speed for the missile. 65 and 70 km are similar numeric examples to illustrate the percentage difference. There is no logical or reasonable argument to support an assertion that a Mach 0.4 difference in release speed for a Mach 4~4.5 missile at a SLIGHTLY higher altitudes will yield a 50% increase in range. That is ridiculous no matter how you cut it.

(5) It is not unreasonable to assume that the SU's best radar like the N011-M BARS has an ~140km range against an F-16 sized target (1.5 sq-m RCS). Actually, some will say that I am being generous here. A 0.0014 sq-m class target like the F-35 will be detectable at roughly 1/8th the range -- 1/2 per 10 times reduction in RCS, hence 1000 times smaller equates roughly to 1/2*1/2*1/2 or 1/8. 1/8th of ~140 km = ~17.5 km. The F-22 is slightly lower in RCS, but in both cases the effective range of the enemy's radar is likely to be way below the effective launch envelope of the AMRAAM which was the point.

I agree with most of your points. Something that keeps getting overlooked in many assessments of the F-35's air-to-air capabilities is the fact that it is a VLO aircraft no matter how you look at it. To compare it to the F-22, and to say that while the Raptor is really, REALLY VLO, while the F-35 is merely really VLO (but stealthier than either the F-117 or B-2 and, some say from the frontal aspect, more so than the F-22), is like saying, a Ferrari is really effing fast, while a Porsche is not as fast, which therefore makes the latter the equivalent of a Ford. No, what many people don't seem to get is that the F-35 and F-22, by virtue of their stealth and superior situational awareness, are simply in a different class. Let's ask this question: which would do better in a BVR engagement vs. an F-86--a Block 50 F-16 or F-15C? Doesn't really matter, does it? Right now, the F-35 and F-22 are both so vastly superior to the SU-27 or SU-30MK or Mig-35 or whatever potential adversary there is out there that it really doesn't matter which you put up there to address the threat. The F-22's superiority in the air-to-air arena will only come to really matter in a decade-and-a-half, at the earliest, when potential adversaries MAY start fielding their own 5th Gen aircraft.

Everyone wants to quote, 'whatever' increase in wing area and 'whatever' increase in thrust, but you're all forgetting basic aerodynamics and the effect of surface area + drag coefficients + thrust on performance + weight. It doesn't matter that the F-35 or whatever have 'clean' aerodynamics if its surface area has ballooned not to mention the effect of drag + surface area + AoA + ect ect have on performance.

Would anyone here be surprised to know that you can have a plane the size of a 747 and a plane the size of F-5 with equal ... what you people are calling "aerodynamics" ... and correlated for thrust/weight between the two ... the smaller with the less surface area wins the contest ...

Last time I checked the 35's surface area was significantly more than any 16 flying the friendly skies not too mention tipping the scales at a few tons more.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 885 Status: Offline

fox100 wrote:

Everyone wants to quote, 'whatever' increase in wing area and 'whatever' increase in thrust, but you're all forgetting basic aerodynamics and the effect of surface area + drag coefficients + thrust on performance + weight. It doesn't matter that the F-35 or whatever have 'clean' aerodynamics if its surface area has ballooned not to mention the effect of drag + surface area + AoA + ect ect have on performance.

Would anyone here be surprised to know that you can have a plane the size of a 747 and a plane the size of F-5 with equal ... what you people are calling "aerodynamics" ... and correlated for thrust/weight between the two ... the smaller with the less surface area wins the contest ...

Last time I checked the 35's surface area was significantly more than any 16 flying the friendly skies not too mention tipping the scales at a few tons more.

The F-35's frontal area is larger than the F-16 and it is heavier? Of course. The Sixteen is about 1/3 smaller in cross section and 1/3 lighter in weight. But the F-16 also has 67% the thrust (if 229 powered) or 53% the thrust (if 220 powered). The F-35's frontal area is also significantly smaller than the F-22 with correspondingly less thrust. Compared to the F-22, the F-35 is roughly 68% as much aircraft with roughly 61% the thrust. That is not bad by ANY standard.

An F-16 with no stores and half a tank of gas will pull about M1.2 at altitude without burners. Technically meeting the definition of "supercruise". An F-22 is said to go M1.7. The F-35's performance should be some where in between the two.

A very important thing to remember about the F-35 is that its clean airframe performance is very likely to be fully realized, or very nearly so, in combat missions. This is because it can fly most missions with absolutely nothing hanging out in the air stream. This is of course also true of the F-22. The ideal performance of a 4th generation fighter on the other hand is almost NEVER ever realized in combat missions because of the penalties exacted by external stores which WILL be there if you need the aircraft to actually fight anything.

(2) The attitude at which the F-35 can fly at without a pressure suit is no different from that of the F-22 which also does not have a pressure suit. The cabin pressurization system of both aircrafts are similar. There is no greater or lesser pressure suit issues, period, for both aircrafts.

First while there is no proof either way that the cabin pressurization system of both aircraft are similiar... or more important that the results are the same. The basic rule in USAF was that the p suit would be required for anything over 50,000 ft. Two events happened which one has to consider. And to be fair, they might not be related. Laughing

Raptor showed up and the rule for no p-suit went up to 67,000 ft. Shocked

, Yeah you might get a big sick if you eject at that alt. So when we see JSF cruising at alts above 50,000ft like what is routinely quoted in public consumption press, then we will know what altitude JSF is or is not capable of doing. One fool put 65,000 feet in an article the other day. 60k has also been mentioned. This is a huge mistake by USAF not to restrict this info to the PA offices. No one here, me, you, anyone not in the need-to-know circle, has any business knowing this.

( I think it is safe to say that the F-35 will not go M1.7 w/o burners. If it does supercruise, my best guess is that it MAY go between Mach 1.1 & 1.4. But we don't know for sure at this time; we'll find out in due time.

I'm glad you stated that. That is the most important part of this exercise.

(4) I was making the assertion that a Mach 1.7~1.8 release vs a Mach 2.1~2.2 release and/or a 65000 ft release vs a 55000ft release will yield LESS than a 10% increase in range and probably less than a M0.2 difference in burn out speed for the missile. 65 and 70 km are similar numeric examples to illustrate the percentage difference. There is no logical or reasonable argument to support an assertion that a Mach 0.4 difference in release speed for a Mach 4~4.5 missile at a SLIGHTLY higher altitudes will yield a 50% increase in range. That is ridiculous no matter how you cut it.

Not silly at all. JSF public consumption performance in this area is unknown. However what the JSF engine was designed to do and it's weight and the fact that it can't super-cruise like F-22. Means JSF will be in your method, trying to burn up a lot of fuel. The long range extra push AMRAAM gets from a high fast AMRAAM shot is a given. And that figure is strong with the older AMRAAM, think of what a D will do.

(5) It is not unreasonable to assume that the SU's best radar like the N011-M BARS has an ~140km range against an F-16 sized target (1.5 sq-m RCS). Actually, some will say that I am being generous here. A 0.0014 sq-m class target like the F-35 will be detectable at roughly 1/8th the range -- 1/2 per 10 times reduction in RCS, hence 1000 times smaller equates roughly to 1/2*1/2*1/2 or 1/8. 1/8th of ~140 km = ~17.5 km. The F-22 is slightly lower in RCS, but in both cases the effective range of the enemy's radar is likely to be way below the effective launch envelope of the AMRAAM which was the point.[/quote]

JSF is not all aspect stealth on par with the F-22. JSF stealth is made to be affordable and low maintenance. Worse is seeing what ever LO profile an export JSF will have.

I agree with most of your points. Something that keeps getting overlooked in many assessments of the F-35's air-to-air capabilities is the fact that it is a VLO aircraft no matter how you look at it. To compare it to the F-22, and to say that while the Raptor is really, REALLY VLO, while the F-35 is merely really VLO (but stealthier than either the F-117 or B-2 and, some say from the frontal aspect, more so than the F-22), is like saying, a Ferrari is really effing fast, while a Porsche is not as fast, which therefore makes the latter the equivalent of a Ford.

Analogies are always suspect, especially when they don't fit even on the most basic form. USAF people have already said JSF is not meant to go into a stiff IADS without the help of the F-22. A JSF trying to thread it's way through an IADS and exposing it's side aspect means a double digit SAM will be a risk factor that drives the mission planning right off the lack of reality scale. In the case of F-117 and B-2, while there might be any unknown in the public risk to them with the threat, they are at least all aspect stealth and are good enough to get through legacy IADS tech of which there is still some of that in the world today.

No, what many people don't seem to get is that the F-35 and F-22, by virtue of their stealth and superior situational awareness, are simply in a different class. Let's ask this question: which would do better in a BVR engagement vs. an F-86--a Block 50 F-16 or F-15C? Doesn't really matter, does it? Right now, the F-35 and F-22 are both so vastly superior to the SU-27 or SU-30MK or Mig-35 or whatever potential adversary there is out there that it really doesn't matter which you put up there to address the threat. The F-22's superiority in the air-to-air arena will only come to really matter in a decade-and-a-half, at the earliest, when potential adversaries MAY start fielding their own 5th Gen aircraft.

F-22 for survivability purposes has no peer. F-35 when you consider things like weaponeering radars from fighters, some SAMs and AAA, beats a legacy. And for that by itself beets no LO at all. Trying to make F-35 something it isn't, is a mistake. It should have better survivability than a legacy. However in a negative stealth event, its raw performance isn't going to keep a Eurofighter or SU from being a serious risk. An F-35 that can keep it's price down will be useful. However it can't go where an F-22 can go. F-35 recapitalization for the USAF fleet makes a lot of sense if we could afford it. Currently, USAF can not. In the case of USAF it will break a modern IADS without F-35 no problem. The ability to fund JSF enough to keep cost from going out the window is reaching a serious stage. Of course that will be a wait and see too. Wink

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 885 Status: Offline

Quote:

JSF is not all aspect stealth on par with the F-22. JSF stealth is made to be affordable and low maintenance. Worse is seeing what ever LO profile an export JSF will have.

The F-35 is publicly claimed to be less stealthy than the F-22 -- size of a golf ball vs size of an insect is about as precise as you are going to get from official sources. They are not going to get into the details and for good reason. There is actually nothing official about F-35 stealth being non all aspect. This is a common deduction from the shaping (or rather the lack thereof) of the exhaust nozzle compared to the F-22. However we do kknow that there will be LO treatments on the exhaust area to include the airframe and the nozzle itself. This is not present on the AA-1 but will be present on subsequent prototypes. It is also safe to say that in both the F-22 and the F-35 RCS from all angles are not equal and some of the worse angles are probably from the rear. The F-35's LO treatment also publicized as being significantly lower maintenance than the F-22's which in turn was miles lower hassle than a B-2's. However, there is no USAF or Lockmart comment or document ever that says that export F-35's will have in ANY WAY more or less LO treatment(s) than US versions. This is 100% speculation by rather dubious third party critics.

Quote:

Analogies are always suspect, especially when they don't fit even on the most basic form. USAF people have already said JSF is not meant to go into a stiff IADS without the help of the F-22. A JSF trying to thread it's way through an IADS and exposing it's side aspect means a double digit SAM will be a risk factor that drives the mission planning right off the lack of reality scale. In the case of F-117 and B-2, while there might be any unknown in the public risk to them with the threat, they are at least all aspect stealth and are good enough to get through legacy IADS tech of which there is still some of that in the world today.

I believe that the RCS of the F-35 will be very amicable from the sides. This of course is an opinion, but so is that of the F-22 being very amicable from the sides which is equally unverifiable. It may have some issues from near dead astern but probably has good LO from less extreme rearward angles, this is also true of the F-22.

I don't think the USAF ever said that the F-35 is not designed to penetrate stiff IADS enivronments. Rather, they have said that the F-22 has an additional edge in such endeavors through its physical performance. In fact, the core mission of the F-35 IS to penetrate stiff IADS to engage targets in 1st day of war strike missions.

Quote:

F-22 for survivability purposes has no peer. F-35 when you consider things like weaponeering radars from fighters, some SAMs and AAA, beats a legacy. And for that by itself beets no LO at all. Trying to make F-35 something it isn't, is a mistake. It should have better survivability than a legacy. However in a negative stealth event, its raw performance isn't going to keep a Eurofighter or SU from being a serious risk...

I cannot stress enough that the entire "narrower band stealth" argument coined by some critics have absolutely no basis or substance other than what these individuals want to believe. There is no mention of F-35 stealth being narrower band than the F-22 by any company (L-M) or USAF or DoD sources. In fact, it won't make sense as a strike aircraft needs detectability reduction against L-band surface based and AWAC radars more than an air dominator platform. Also, the shaping and materials behavior doesn't change much between the L through X microwave bands. By the time they do -- such as when you talk about IR or LF or HF or high MMW ranges -- we are well outside the operating frequency of ANY air search radar.

Quote:

...An F-35 that can keep it's price down will be useful. However it can't go where an F-22 can go. F-35 recapitalization for the USAF fleet makes a lot of sense if we could afford it. Currently, USAF can not. In the case of USAF it will break a modern IADS without F-35 no problem. The ability to fund JSF enough to keep cost from going out the window is reaching a serious stage. Of course that will be a wait and see too.

Now, this is what I totally disagree with. If you want to say that the USAF cannot afford to revitalize its fleet or that it shouldn't because the US should surrender her superpower positioning, that is a completely separate debate. However, if it has to and wants to then the F-35 is a much better choice than the F-22 specifically because it is much more affordable to acquire. In fact, it is much more affordable to acquire vs a legacy jet like the F-15 much less an F-22. Going all F-22s without spending any money on the F-35 program to begin with will mean a 700~800 aircraft procurement through 2030 or thereabouts. Going with an F-22 only procurement now -- after already spending some 25 billion or so on the JSF -- will mean about 600~700 Raptors in total. Procuring both the Raptors and the F-35 wil yield about 183 Raptors and 1780 F-35As, or about 380 Raptors and 1180 F-35s. We'll yield about two to three times the number of airframes and wind up with a much more capable air force in both cases. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that if we have to stick with just one 5th generation type, eliminating the Raptor makes more sense than eliminating the F-35. The reasoning being that 2400 F-35As is a much more capable and effective air force than 800 Raptors.

Newbie Joined: Jul 13, 2007 Posts: 18 Status: Offline

Hi guys, I've been reading this forum for a while as a lurker, but i cant resist to participate in this discussion.

dwightlooi: You are telling that there is no difference between launching AMRAAM from F-22 at supercruise and F-35 at afterburners. I can give you one. F-35 on afterburner will be more detectable by enemy fighters due to heat from afterburner. Su-30's has some nasty AAM that have IR seeker. So difference between stealthy F-22 flight and sudden launch and F-35 afterburner dash easily observable by Su-30 (by the time F-35 will be with units, Su-XX will have AESA radar too) Which is better?

Newbie Joined: Jul 13, 2007 Posts: 18 Status: Offline

Dont forget that IRS-T is standard eqp in Su-30...

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

Just so were clear here...the p-suit requirement did not change. F-22 drivers are limited to 60K.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 885 Status: Offline

JaM1977 wrote:

Hi guys, I've been reading this forum for a while as a lurker, but i cant resist to participate in this discussion.

dwightlooi: You are telling that there is no difference between launching AMRAAM from F-22 at supercruise and F-35 at afterburners. I can give you one. F-35 on afterburner will be more detectable by enemy fighters due to heat from afterburner. Su-30's has some nasty AAM that have IR seeker. So difference between stealthy F-22 flight and sudden launch and F-35 afterburner dash easily observable by Su-30 (by the time F-35 will be with units, Su-XX will have AESA radar too) Which is better?

(1) What I meant was that the AIM-120 missile or any missile doesn't know and doesn't care if the launching aircraft was on A/B.

(2) The F-35 would have detected, dashed and released the weapon a few times beyond the realistic search range ANY IRST system. Basically, volume search with IRST systems is very short ranged because volume search at their maximum magnification is impossibly slow.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35A vs SU-30MK (physical characteristics)