4th vs 5th gen differences

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3108
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 10:05

How about beating clean F-16s, while carrying a GBU-12, and enough fuel to head to the bombing range after BFM. It's like the Favorite F-35 quotes thread never existed, for those with goldfish memory.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2009
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 10:40

Corsair1963 wrote:So, you don't have any sources for your comments above. Just your own personal recollections??? :?


You and I both know where to find the statements I said above. I'm too lazy to give the links here 1 by 1. If you want to deny that these statements were actually said by F-35 pilots, then be my guest, I'm fine with that.

My only point is this.
The F-35 is a great platform but when comparing it to the F-22 for A-A, then I'll have to draw the line. Its not as good as the Raptor and was never meant to be as good as the Raptor.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2009
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 11:03

wrightwing wrote:How about beating clean F-16s, while carrying a GBU-12, and enough fuel to head to the bombing range after BFM. It's like the Favorite F-35 quotes thread never existed, for those with goldfish memory.


I consider F/A-18 with 4 engines or a Turbocharged engine better than that.
He could have been referring to a clean F/A-18.
Thats probably how I would describe the Flanker's performance, (Su-27 or Su-35). High AoA like the the Hornet but with lots a power.

Okay theres a lot of great F-35 quotes out there. And I'm not disputing that.
All I'm saying is, its not a Raptor. It's not the USAF's primary A-A platform and it was never meant to be the USAF's primary A-A platform.Can we at least acknowledged that?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5310
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 11:36

zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:So, you don't have any sources for your comments above. Just your own personal recollections??? :?


You and I both know where to find the statements I said above. I'm too lazy to give the links here 1 by 1. If you want to deny that these statements were actually said by F-35 pilots, then be my guest, I'm fine with that.

My only point is this.
The F-35 is a great platform but when comparing it to the F-22 for A-A, then I'll have to draw the line. Its not as good as the Raptor and was never meant to be as good as the Raptor.



Sorry, not interested in doing your work......... :?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5310
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 11:37

wrightwing wrote:How about beating clean F-16s, while carrying a GBU-12, and enough fuel to head to the bombing range after BFM. It's like the Favorite F-35 quotes thread never existed, for those with goldfish memory.



Sounds like somebody has a selective memory??? :wink:
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2009
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 12:02

Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:How about beating clean F-16s, while carrying a GBU-12, and enough fuel to head to the bombing range after BFM. It's like the Favorite F-35 quotes thread never existed, for those with goldfish memory.



Sounds like somebody has a selective memory??? :wink:


No, because that statements speaks more about the pilot's competence than the F-35's maneuverability.

Lets analyze the statement shall we. the F-35 beat a CLEAN F-16 while carrying GBU-12s and lots of fuel. Does that mean the F-35 with all those bombs and fuel has better performance than a CLEAN F-16? Didn't we always say that the F-35A turns slightly inferior to a CLEAN F-16.

So are we gona throw that out the window and say that an F-35 with GBU-12s and Fuel to burn turns better than a Clean F-16?
Nope, that statement simply implied that even with bombs and fuel the F-35 still had enough performance to turn and burn with a clean F-16. It may have been inferior, but the gap was close enough for a competent pilot pull out a win.

So yeah, thats more about the pilot than the F-35
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1117
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 14:31

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.


Agreed because you have to give fighter pilots confidence to fully prosecute their missions without any apprehension. Which is why even in its stealthiest bombing configuration the F-35A will have 2 AMRAAMs, 25mm cannon, 9g instantaneous maneuverability, great acceleration and 50 degree controllable AoA authority to give the pilot that full confidence not to be wary of enemy engagement. Even the PCA if it is to be a big new build design of SR-71 dimensions will I suspect have a minimum of 7g capability as well as internal cannon.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 14:35

Scorpion1alpha wrote: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.


Thanks for your detailed reply and inside view. So maneuverability can be still an important piece of the puzzle. Especially in a air superiority mission.

And when i got you right, at the gulf war in 1991 was the first time, when sensors were more important then maneuverability/BFM.
Last edited by swiss on 22 Jan 2019, 16:43, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 424
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 14:57

zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:How about beating clean F-16s, while carrying a GBU-12, and enough fuel to head to the bombing range after BFM. It's like the Favorite F-35 quotes thread never existed, for those with goldfish memory.



Sounds like somebody has a selective memory??? :wink:


No, because that statements speaks more about the pilot's competence than the F-35's maneuverability.

Lets analyze the statement shall we. the F-35 beat a CLEAN F-16 while carrying GBU-12s and lots of fuel. Does that mean the F-35 with all those bombs and fuel has better performance than a CLEAN F-16? Didn't we always say that the F-35A turns slightly inferior to a CLEAN F-16.


The F-35 is said to be slightly inferior in terms of acceleration and climb performance but it has better nose-pointing abilities and can also get slower quicker. Certainly, these attributes combined with its superior situational awareness could have helped the F-35 win.

So are we gona throw that out the window and say that an F-35 with GBU-12s and Fuel to burn turns better than a Clean F-16?
Nope, that statement simply implied that even with bombs and fuel the F-35 still had enough performance to turn and burn with a clean F-16. It may have been inferior, but the gap was close enough for a competent pilot pull out a win.

So yeah, thats more about the pilot than the F-35


Or it could be other attributes besides turn rates, acceleration and climb performance were the decisive factors in the referenced exercise.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2009
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 15:30

icemaverick wrote:Or it could be other attributes besides turn rates, acceleration and climb performance were the decisive factors in the referenced exercise.

Okay thats fair

marsavian wrote:Even the PCA if it is to be a big new build design of SR-71 dimensions will I suspect have a minimum of 7g capability as well as internal cannon.


in the post 2040 timeline, what will everyone else be flying?
Russia: Flanker-X or Su-57
China: J-20
Turkey: may end up exporting their supermaneuverable TFX
S.Korea: KFX
Japan: F-3 maybe, they apparently want a supermaneuverable platform judging from the 3D TVC of their X-2


I just hope the PCA will be superior to those platforms in all aspects which include kinematics.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 987
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 16:33

What everybody ill be flying post 2040?

USA => the F-22 replacements, and 1.500 F-35 and some left - overs.

Russia => Flankers and Migs and the single one point five PaK-Ma-Na-Pa (Renamed after the duct tape company).

China => Good airframes with outstanding Apple Driven avionix. Still waiting for engines up to par.

The UK and France and Germany are still discussing their 5th gen airframe lay-out.

The Swedes finally bought the rights to produce the F-20.

The Turks are trying to eat from both sides and by 2040 both sides will have vomited over the Turks.

Aussies matured and found that learning how to swim is a better way to defend an island.

The rest of the world is bankrupt.
Last edited by vilters on 22 Jan 2019, 17:00, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 987
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 16:38

Stupid question anyway. :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:
The way we are consuming it right now?

By 2050 we will all be fighting with sticks and stones over the very last barrel of Jet fuel left.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1117
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 17:37

zero-one wrote:
icemaverick wrote:
marsavian wrote:Even the PCA if it is to be a big new build design of SR-71 dimensions will I suspect have a minimum of 7g capability as well as internal cannon.


in the post 2040 timeline, what will everyone else be flying?
Russia: Flanker-X or Su-57
China: J-20
Turkey: may end up exporting their supermaneuverable TFX
S.Korea: KFX
Japan: F-3 maybe, they apparently want a supermaneuverable platform judging from the 3D TVC of their X-2

I just hope the PCA will be superior to those platforms in all aspects which include kinematics.


Kinematics will be tertiary after stealth and range. PCA just needs to fly much further than existing stealth aircraft with more broadband stealth so it has surprise and reach as it's primary advantages. However it will have two very powerful F-135-like engines and a big sleek aerodynamic wing to house all that extra fuel so I don't see why they can't get kinematics on a par with those aircraft maybe even better with a great design however stealth and range will still be its primary requirements. This will become the stealthy replacement for the F-15E as the time horizons for F-15E retirement/PCA introduction match pretty closely.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1701
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 19:35

zero-one wrote:Lets analyze the statement shall we.


This was the article was it not - spend time reading the whole dogfight section carefully!:
viewtopic.php?t=54012

Not sure on the inert but a single GBU-12 weighs less than 2 x AMRAAM so considering no drag it really shouldn't be that detrimental regarding performance. The take away sounds more like they can fly with an internal bomb in an asymmetric config and not be as restricted in whatever BFM setup they were doing (e.g. G / Roll rate etc) to 4 Gen fighters.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 20:12

They were fighting early 1980's F-16MLU's with the Pratt F100-220?
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests