4th vs 5th gen differences

[quicksilver]

"In that 99.9% of us here are not military pilots; and 99.9% of us do not have a clearance to view classified material...[or] it can [do something] with no proof."

So, given that most will never fly a fighter nor view classified info, what constitutes "proof" after the umpteenth discussion on these things? Some don't seem to learn, nor even use the considerable references that are readily available here and on the web for these and other topics.

The value of this website is the general quality of the discussions and the inputs that form the character of those discussions. When this becomes just another on-line residence for fanboys and trolls, its value will diminish for all, and participants will simply evaporate into the rest of their lives elsewhere.

imnsho.

[F-16ADF]

Proof?

Sure, show me a Eurofighter Typhoon performance manual. And then show me a F-35A performance manual.
Do you have one for the F-22 also?

All of those are classified.






My point is, I was never a fighter pilot. (QS, I believe you were a pilot in the USMC?) I have learned a great deal (generally from pilots) from people like JB, Gums, Meteor, Spaz, Magnum, 35AOA, and you Quicksilver. And from still being able to go to the nearby base ops for the last couple of decades. You pilots were there, and did all of that. That is why F-16.net is far superior to the other aviation forums; and after following it for about eight years, I finally decided to join-

[wrightwing]

Jon Beesley former F-22 and F-35 Test Pilot..

Though I'm not questioning the credibility of Mr Beesley, but we need to put this into context.
These statements were made very early into the program where the F-35's flight envelope were still largely made up of estimates from wind tunnel testing etc.

Now I'm not saying that Mr Beesley based his statements entirely on that. But he was doing these test very early in the testing phase. Most likely these were done on the best and safest parts of the F-35's maneuvering envelope. Weight growth has yet to set in.
And in those conditions, The F-35 could perform quite closely to the F-22.
The F-35's full envelope hasn't been opened until very recently. So comparisons between the 2 plane's kinematics can only be drawn accurately from now on. Post Block 3F age



IIRC these statements were also made around 2008, give or take. Was the F-22's maneuvering envelope already fully opened at that time? Legitimate question. Was Beesley able to fly the Raptor when the entire envelope was opened up already?

So yes, perhaps in some parts of the envelope, in the subsonic region the F-35 can hang with the F-22, F-16 and Typhoon. In other parts the F-35 will be slightly inferior and yes there will be parts where the F-35 will frankly just be Outclassed (i.e. high and fast, supersonic maneuverability,)

The F-22 had its full envelope well before IOC in 2005. Beesley wasn't speculating. Test pilots flew the F-35 to up to 9.9G long before 3F. He was talking about the subsonic envelope, where 95+% of combat occurs. Billie Flynn knows what he's talking about, too. He's flown the Typhoon and all F-35 variants. LTC (R) Dave Berke flew F-22s and F-35s. COL Paul Moga also flew F-22s and F-35s. The only time 4th generation aircraft have any advantages (if any), is air show configurations. Strap weapons, pods, and fuel tanks on them, and F-35s significantly outperform them.

[F-16ADF]

Given a hypothetical comparison (and I'm no fighter pilot) I believe the F-35, probably from Mach .4-.6ish maybe ~.7 is better than Typhoon. But once above that, the Eurofighter is probably better (even one configured strictly for A-A, and if he was lucky enough to make it to the 3-9 without being shot down by the stealthy -35), and above Mach 1 is superior because it does not suffer from trim drag. As I said, if anyone has their acceleration numbers, I sure would like to see them. And from the fact that a Raptor pilot said that what impressed him the most about Typhoon was its acceleration (i.e. power).


I imagine if you were to overlay their curves, the F-35 most likely would have the advantage on the left side of the dog-house plot., while the EF would have the advantage on the right side of it. It just depends on how much of an advantage vs disadvantage.

[swiss]

The value of this website is the general quality of the discussions and the inputs that form the character of those discussions. When this becomes just another on-line residence for fanboys and trolls, its value will diminish for all, and participants will simply evaporate into the rest of their lives elsewhere.

imnsho.

Well said.

Proof:

Sure, show me a Eurofighter Typhoon performance manual. And then show me a F-35A performance manual.
Do you have one for the F-22 also?

All of those are classified.

Sad thing is, even when we have excess to normally classified material, like evaluation of an Air Force. Some guys still don't believe it.

Best example is this whole Grippen vs Typhoon vs Rafale vs F-35 discussion all the time. But if you see the results its simple.

The F-35 is superior to the best 4 gen. The Grippen is the worst Eurocanard, and the Rafale is first.

Same with Su-35. We now she has inferior Sensors, thanks to the Russian manufactures and a Hugh RCS and IR signature. But there are still People how think the Su ist a top notch 4 gen Fighter or even equal to a 5 gen.

[wrightwing]

Given a hypothetical comparison (and I'm no fighter pilot) I believe the F-35, probably from Mach .4-.6ish maybe ~.7 is better than Typhoon. But once above that, the Eurofighter is probably better (even one configured strictly for A-A, and if he was lucky enough to make it to the 3-9 without being shot down by the stealthy -35), and above Mach 1 is superior because it does not suffer from trim drag. As I said, if anyone has their acceleration numbers, I sure would like to see them. And from the fact that a Raptor pilot said that what impressed him the most about Typhoon was its acceleration (i.e. power).


I imagine if you were to overlay their curves, the F-35 most likely would have the advantage on the left side of the dog-house plot., while the EF would have the advantage on the right side of it. It just depends on how much of an advantage vs disadvantage.

Based upon anecdotal evidence, I suspect it's a broader range than M.4 to M.6. The Typhoon is superior getting through the transonic region, but below that it sounds like the F-35 will keep up with most anything else (especially if the Typhoon has EFTs.)
That's the key sticking point. In order for 4th generation aircraft to have any sort of range, they have to carry EFT/CFTs. Their superiority over an F-35 is in very limited portions of the envelope, and only in limited configurations. That's the F-35's niche. Kinematically, it does more things better, more of the time. Other jets can exceed it, under certain circumstances, but not necessarily tactically relevant circumstances. In numerous articles, discussing Typhoon vs F-22 fights, the Typhoons had to strip off all their externals including pylons. I'm sure they fly like a raped ape, in that configuration, but it's not tactically relevant. The idea behind the F-35, is that it has sufficient kinematics, in the vast majority of circumstances, to equal any competitor, while enjoying massive advantages in stealth/situational awareness.

[F-16ADF]

Yes, I agree. That is why I said "if the Typhoon was lucky enough to make it to 3-9". These 4th gen jets are too limited, I have always implied that.

An EF configured for a very narrow mission, (i.e. with 4 fuselage medium range AAM, 2 ASRAAMs, and 2 empty EFT pylons) probably will not be that much of a drag monster. F-35 may also be carrying external -9X's. That scenario is so limited, and from fact "if" the EF doesn't get shot down BVR. And it most likely will because 4th gen jets stand no chance against 5th gen jets.



It's great that the F-35 can do all of low speed high AOA (sub 250 knot) maneuvers. But doing those in a 2 v 2 or many v many still is probably near suicidal. And that high AOA stuff is still able to be defeated by an opponent that uses adequate separation and the vertical.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

But doing those in a 2 v 2 or many v many still is probably near suicidal. And that high AOA stuff is still able to be defeated by an opponent that uses adequate separation and the vertical.

Which is why the amazing ability to blow through while maintaining lock and calling in a shot from another aircraft/ship/anything-in-the-network is so revolutionary.

[Corsair1963]

But today Raptor pilots who have been flying it in it's full envelope for years see the F-35 at block 3F and notice that substantial gap in performance in some parts.

Please, provide sources.....

[Corsair1963]

So to recap:
4th gen A-A: Mach 1.5
F-35: Mach 1.6
F-22: Mach 2+ (possibly Mach 2.42)

So by using the Speed Criteria we can clearly see what Pilots mean when they say that an F-35 performs like the best 4th gens (F-16, F/A-18 or Typhoon). We also see the substantial gap the F-22 has over everyone else.

Remember, both the F-35 and 4th gens will actually struggle to reach Mach 1.5, they can probably do it at certain altitudes. F-15 pilots say they usually only reach up to Mach 1.3, so 1.5 will take some effort. The F-22 on the other hand effortlessly cruises at 1.8 without AB.

I believe this Gap translates into maneuverability as well. Yes the F-35 is a 9G machine even when loaded. The F-16 and Typhoon can also reach 9Gs with some ordnance. But they can only do it once certain parameters are met. The Raptor can get to 9Gs easier, at more altitudes.

QUOTE: While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant
to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager
for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach
1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight
regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized
flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). "I don't see how that gets you an advantage" Davis said, referring to
the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with
existing designs.

Also, Bille Flynn was quoted as saying he regularly took the F-35 up to Mach 1.6. Which, speaks volumes.....

[Corsair1963]

Based upon anecdotal evidence, I suspect it's a broader range than M.4 to M.6. The Typhoon is superior getting through the transonic region, but below that it sounds like the F-35 will keep up with most anything else (especially if the Typhoon has EFTs.)
That's the key sticking point. In order for 4th generation aircraft to have any sort of range, they have to carry EFT/CFTs. Their superiority over an F-35 is in very limited portions of the envelope, and only in limited configurations. That's the F-35's niche. Kinematically, it does more things better, more of the time. Other jets can exceed it, under certain circumstances, but not necessarily tactically relevant circumstances. In numerous articles, discussing Typhoon vs F-22 fights, the Typhoons had to strip off all their externals including pylons. I'm sure they fly like a raped ape, in that configuration, but it's not tactically relevant. The idea behind the F-35, is that it has sufficient kinematics, in the vast majority of circumstances, to equal any competitor, while enjoying massive advantages in stealth/situational awareness.

Very well said.....

[wrightwing]

Yes, I agree. That is why I said "if the Typhoon was lucky enough to make it to 3-9". These 4th gen jets are too limited, I have always implied that.

An EF configured for a very narrow mission, (i.e. with 4 fuselage medium range AAM, 2 ASRAAMs, and 2 empty EFT pylons) probably will not be that much of a drag monster. F-35 may also be carrying external -9X's. That scenario is so limited, and from fact "if" the EF doesn't get shot down BVR. And it most likely will because 4th gen jets stand no chance against 5th gen jets.



It's great that the F-35 can do all of low speed high AOA (sub 250 knot) maneuvers. But doing those in a 2 v 2 or many v many still is probably near suicidal. And that high AOA stuff is still able to be defeated by an opponent that uses adequate separation and the vertical.

Here's the thing though- the F-35 can do the high speed and vertical fight. If the enemy is dumb enough to go slow, the F-35 can match that, too.

[Scorpion1alpha]

Look above. My point made.

Your predicting powers are great,
Can you please tell me the winning numbers of the next lottery?



Ps, good explanation about the made with a purpose in mind.

Why thanks. Unfortunately, I can't tell you the next winning lottery numbers. That is highly classified.

Thanks a lot for your honest words. Some times when you read some comments here, the F-35 seems the best Fighter in every parameter. Or in german words "eine eierlegende Wollmilchsau."

If i may ask a you, on what position would you put maneuverability in a air to air fight Today. Compare to Stealth, sensor, sensor vision and EW (BVR and WVR).

Danke.

That question leads into a rather loaded and involved answer. I’ll try and keep it short and simple.

In today’s world, I would put maneuverability below the stealth, sensor and EW capabilities that you listed. For fighter sized aircraft, each of those techs (especially if each are at a high level) are game changers in modern air combat for reasons you might already know and understand.

For fighters, maneuverability will always play an important role. I don’t know of any fighter pilot that dismisses maneuverability or wish they had less of it. Now back in the day, especially in WWI, WWII, Korean War, and the Vietnam War, fighter maneuverability was of the utmost importance because good ole BFM was the primary aerial engagement method and the plane that turns and burns the best (along with tactics) will have the best chance at surviving and succeeding.

Today, there are other ways to engage the enemy using technology that either wasn’t available back then, or not refined until recently. Stealth opens up a whole new world of tactics and newer, more capable radars and sensors combined with the stealth adds more to your ability to be successful. Mating the two (having your fancy radar / sensors / EW systems working with your stealth to remain stealthy) is tricky and is one of the things that separates 5th Gen from 4th Gen tech.

Maneuverability though, stills plays an important role. How? We know modern day BFM is a very dangerous place to be. HMDs and HOBS missiles are very dangerous and fights rarely are 1v1, so why go there? Well, if you have great SA from your fancy radar and sensors while remaining hard to detect through your stealth, you should get first look and first shot, right? But if your jet doesn’t have the maneuverability (high or low speeds), you sometimes can’t get in that optimum position to fire your weapon when you want or need to. So, maneuverability plays an important role even in BVR for positional optimization for a shot.

I.e. I’m in my fancy F-22 raging around somewhere in the battle space supersonically way up in the bozosphere, I see and know everything because my radar and sensors (or other off-board assets giving it to me) is giving me a God’s-eye picture of everything I need to know and nobody can see me because of my stealthy signature. The F-22’s superior maneuverability even at supersonic speeds will allow me to position myself to take out my victim quickly with incredible kinematics imparted in my missile shot and give it the highest PK. If you take away the maneuver capability, that shot opportunity might not be there a few seconds / minutes later for lesser fighters.

Then there’s just the basic handling qualities of the jet because everybody loves to turn and burn in a fighter and not be out of control doing it.

That went on more than I thought or wanted to, but I hope that gives you a different perspective. Remember in a fighter, if turning and burning isn’t important but just having stealth and a great radar and sensors is, you would be a B-2.

[zero-one]

That went on more than I thought or wanted to, but I hope that gives you a different perspective. Remember in a fighter, if turning and burning isn’t important but just having stealth and a great radar and sensors is, you would be a B-2.

I always say this about the PCA program, which is why I prefer to have a fighter sized platform for it. And if its going to be comprised of a family of systems where cost is a major concern then having an updated F-22 platform as part of that family isn't half bad. That way you can ensure that your 6th gen will still retain the same eye-watering speed and maneuverability the Raptor has.

There are proponents who propose the PCA to be a derivative of the B-21 with lots of fuel and weapons and great big sensors and networking capabilities. Some people here might like that but frankly, I'd be more inclined to having an A-A optimized F-35 instead.

But today Raptor pilots who have been flying it in it's full envelope for years see the F-35 at block 3F and notice that substantial gap in performance in some parts.

Please, provide sources.....

Well how else would we explain how in the past the narrative from F-35 pilots was:
Q: How the maneuverable is the F-35?
A: It's like a Raptor just a little bit...this and that

today its:
Q: Whats the biggest misconception about the F-35?
A: People think it was built to dogfight

(The Raptor was also not built to dogfight, but you'll never hear pilots saying that. I've heard Max Moga and other pilots rave at just how dominant the Raptor is in a dogfight. If the F-35 was indeed Raptor like, then you would also hear Raptor like comments from its pilots.

The best we heard so far were from, Dolby Hanche, which went along the lines of, "it can, its better than a loaded F-16, its like an F/A-18 with a turbo".....impressive but not Raptor like,

Then thers Chip Burke who always eludes the question almost as if he's afraid to answer it. )

Q: Is it more maneuverable than 4th gens?
A: No.....its not a Raptor.

On a thread I started called "Best BVR" fighter, some people actually proposed that the F-35 is better than the F-22

I'm not trying to poop on the F-35, I think it can hold its own in BFM and dominate in BVR. but lets keep it real.
It is primarily a strike platform. So labeling it as the best at everything is going overboard, its like every problem can be solved by buying more F-35s

[Corsair1963]

Please, provide sources.....

Well how else would we explain how in the past the narrative from F-35 pilots was:
Q: How the maneuverable is the F-35?
A: It's like a Raptor just a little bit...this and that

today its:
Q: Whats the biggest misconception about the F-35?
A: People think it was built to dogfight

(The Raptor was also not built to dogfight, but you'll never hear pilots saying that. I've heard Max Moga and other pilots rave at just how dominant the Raptor is in a dogfight. If the F-35 was indeed Raptor like, then you would also hear Raptor like comments from its pilots.

The best we heard so far were from, Dolby Hanche, which went along the lines of, "it can, its better than a loaded F-16, its like an F/A-18 with a turbo".....impressive but not Raptor like,

Then thers Chip Burke who always eludes the question almost as if he's afraid to answer it. )

Q: Is it more maneuverable than 4th gens?
A: No.....its not a Raptor.

On a thread I started called "Best BVR" fighter, some people actually proposed that the F-35 is better than the F-22

I'm not trying to poop on the F-35, I think it can hold its own in BFM and dominate in BVR. but lets keep it real.
It is primarily a strike platform. So labeling it as the best at everything is going overboard, its like every problem can be solved by buying more F-35s.

So, you don't have any sources for your comments above. Just your own personal recollections???