The Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor

[SpudmanWP]

Based on previous USAF F-22 to F-35 comparisons, it's a safe bet that this is tied to the time it takes for each fighter to hit a detected target at a certain range. Since the F-22 flies higher, faster, and has a longer ranged radar, it would take 4 F-35s (one at each point of the compass) for an F-35 to detect & hit a target at the same time that an F-22 (who detected it sooner and will get there faster from the center of the circle) to hit the target.

It was not a representation saying that 2 F-22s (14 AIMs) could take out an opposing fighter force but 8 F-35s (32 AIMs) would be needed.

[vilters]

If you want to remain "hidden"?
You can not turn on your radar.
Only "passive" sensors count.

And speed is relative.
If you have to burn most of your fuel to get to your top speed?
You are a glider on your way home.

[marsavian]

Raptor's supercruise speed is greater than F-35's top speed . No plane gets faster more fuel efficiently.

[viper12]

But that's the problem, is it not? These things are classified, so it's impossible to know for sure what/if it exists. So yes, it is speculation on my part.

But it would seem logical, at least to me..

Well, your logic falls into the same category as "I don't know why, thus God!".

The problem with that kind of logic is that by defining it as absolute, you stop looking for more plausible answers.

In this case we know several facts:
* The F-22 is not allowed to be exported
* The F-35 is allowed to be exported
* The F-35 is a newer model than the F-22
* The F-35 incorporates anti-tamper technology
* They are looking to retrofit several of the technologies of the F-35 into the F-22

With these facts we can make the following logical conclusions:
* The F-35 has several more advanced technologies than the F-22 (since they want to retrofit these to the F-22)
* The F-35 is allowed to be exported with these more advanced technologies
* The anti-tamper technology in the F-35 is robust enough to allow it to be exported with these more advanced technologies


So lets take two competing hypotheses as to why the F-22 is not allowed to be exported while the F-35 is:

Hypothesis 1: The F-22 is not allowed to be exported since it does not have anti-tamper technology.

Reasoning for this hypothesis:
a. The F-35 has several more advanced technologies than the F-22
b. The F-35 has anti-tamper technology
c. The F-35 is allowed to be exported

or

Hypothesis 2: The F-22 is not allowed the be exported due to some unknown secret property.

Reasoning for this hypothesis:
a. We do not know all the secret properties of the F-22
b. The F-35 is allowed to be exported
c. Therefor the F-35 does not have the unknown secret properties of the F-22 (circular argumentation)


Currently I see hypothesis 1 as more likely.

There's one thing you forgot ; the F-22 has higher costs per flight hour, around $17,000 more : https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-421499/

As a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation, with 10K flight hours per aircraft during its lifetime and neglecting various things that were omitted in the CPFH figures, an F-22 would cost $170M more than an F-35A per lifetime, so it would make (fiscal) sense to replace the F-22 fleet with the F-35A if the latter were somewhat equal or superior. Yet we don't see anything pointing to that, and the current upgrades for the F-22 are meant to keep it relevant for years, if not decades.

So I think that, besides having tamper problems for export, the F-22 likely has a few tricks up its sleeve that makes it superior enough to the F-35A in a few key areas to keep it flying.

[icemaverick]

With the right tactics and skilled pilots, it's entirely possible that a flight of 4 Lightnings could come out on top against 4 Raptors. The F-22 probably has the overall edge against an F-35 in a 1 vs 1 scenario. But it gets more interesting when you have groups of aircraft fighting each other.

The F-35s undoubtedly have better sensor fusion and network-centric warfare capabilities. They also have EODAS, which the F-22s lack. Surely the software on the F-35 is quite a bit more advanced than what's found in the F-22 as well. All this combined means that a flight of F-35s may have an advantage in terms of situational awareness.

[SpudmanWP]

If you want to remain "hidden"?
You can not turn on your radar.

Tell that to every F-22 pilot that has smoked Red-Air while only having a radar to get a weapon's grade solution.

LPI, look it up.

[count_to_10]

So, a very important factor in an F-22 vs F-35 is how close an AMRAAM has to get to either of them in order to home in. It will get really strange if that range turns out to be prohibitively small.

[marsavian]

Sidewinders will probably be more effective than Aamrams in a stealth battle. Aamrams will probably have to be guided to a couple of miles given how small their radar is Vs the VLO RCS they are tracking.

[zero-one]

Thats another thing I'm wondering about. In a stealth on stealth battle, wouldn't that make WVR a lot more likely? You're not gona detect or track each other from at least 20 or 30 Miles out, and thats on a good day and if you're lucky.

In RF 17-1, the only F-35s killed were the ones who happed to be passing by and detected visually. Red air had a lot of high tech sensors, radar, optics and IR but they all couldn't detect the F-35 down range.

Lastly tailgate said that they are very difficult to target even with a 9X. He often contimplates on using a gun when going against a Raptor.

So in a stealth vs stealth war, wouldn't that make speed and maneuverability a tad bit more relevant again.

[vilters]

AWACS.
What are the AWACS doing in this stealth to stealth battle?

Aren't they supposed to "broadcast" the SA to their fighters who are in "listen" only mode?

If stealth to stealth is gonna be pure fighter to fighter? We are gonna have some fine pancakes and it's back to WW1.

If the AWACS is blind?
Might as well cut them up and sell for the cost of the aluminium.

[zero-one]

AWACS.
What are the AWACS doing in this stealth to stealth battle?

Aren't they supposed to "broadcast" the SA to their fighters who are in "listen" only mode?

If stealth to stealth is gonna be pure fighter to fighter? We are gonna have some fine pancakes and it's back to WW1.

If the AWACS is blind?
Might as well cut them up and sell for the cost of the aluminium.

I don't think AWACS will help very much to be honest, in the traditional sense. Because In every RF excercise 5th gens were able to operate with relative impunity. I'd be surprised if they simply didn't do excercises against AWACS.

They were very difficult to detect and often came and gone as they pleased, but imagine if they went up against each other, its not hard to imagine an F-35 suddenly being surprised to see a Raptor so close and vise versa.

F-16s were able to get close and kill F-35s a few times so why not the F-22.

I'm not saying it will be WW2 all over again, there will still be BVR, but I'd certainly be surprised if the BVR ratio accounted for 50% or more of the kills. I just can't see competent F-22 and F-35 pilots being detected and killed from beyond visual range despite the stealth and overwhelming ammount of S.A. they have, those things will bombard you with all sorts of warnings once you try to paint paint them.

[nutshell]

Based on previous USAF F-22 to F-35 comparisons, it's a safe bet that this is tied to the time it takes for each fighter to hit a detected target at a certain range. Since the F-22 flies higher, faster, and has a longer ranged radar, it would take 4 F-35s (one at each point of the compass) for an F-35 to detect & hit a target at the same time that an F-22 (who detected it sooner and will get there faster from the center of the circle) to hit the target.

It was not a representation saying that 2 F-22s (14 AIMs) could take out an opposing fighter force by 8 F-35s (32 AIMs) would be needed.

Ty, this way makes much, much more sense.

Else it would've been cheaper to retool / build a new assembly line and go back to the Raptor which is what made the general's statement weird to me.

Even at 250M per piece' F22 would've been a much better choice than, say 4*100M F35A (making the A completely pointless for the US).

[wrightwing]

If you want to remain "hidden"?
You can not turn on your radar.
Only "passive" sensors count.

And speed is relative.
If you have to burn most of your fuel to get to your top speed?
You are a glider on your way home.

The APG-77 can scan fast enough for very brief emissions, combined with LPI techniques. Most of the time, the APG-77 and ALR-94 would be listening passively for targets.

[wrightwing]

So, a very important factor in an F-22 vs F-35 is how close an AMRAAM has to get to either of them in order to home in. It will get really strange if that range turns out to be prohibitively small.

If the launch aircraft can detect the target, it can guide the missile to impact via 2 way datalink.

[wrightwing]

Thats another thing I'm wondering about. In a stealth on stealth battle, wouldn't that make WVR a lot more likely? You're not gona detect or track each other from at least 20 or 30 Miles out, and thats on a good day and if you're lucky.

In RF 17-1, the only F-35s killed were the ones who happed to be passing by and detected visually. Red air had a lot of high tech sensors, radar, optics and IR but they all couldn't detect the F-35 down range.

Lastly tailgate said that they are very difficult to target even with a 9X. He often contimplates on using a gun when going against a Raptor.

So in a stealth vs stealth war, wouldn't that make speed and maneuverability a tad bit more relevant again.

Against a peer stealth threat, yes. The Su-57 will be detected much further away than 20-30nm. The J-20 is likely in the same boat.