4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 01:48
by charlielima223
This isn't a pissing contest. I stumbled upon this pod cast interviewing a current USAF pilot speaking of his opinions comparing 4th gen fighters to 5th gen fighters. I don't know when they recorded this interview but be warned... at time index 38:30 he speaks of the F-35's maneuverability.

At any rate. Hope ya'll enjoy

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 04:29
by firebase99
Interesting about the maneuverability, or there lack of it, confusing to me especially after seeing the 35 perform over the past year. He basically states, not basically, he says flat out "the F35 is NOT more maneuverable than your average 4th gen fighter " He mentions recently getting the AIM9X operational and SBDII testing...maybe this is a year old? No mention of the F35 crash at Beaufort though....

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 10:39
by hornetfinn
Saying that F-35 is not more maneuverable than 4th gen fighters does not necessarily mean it's less maneuverable either. As it is supposed to have the best qualities of F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to maneuverability, it was designed to really match 4th gens when it comes to maneuvering. I think what makes F-35 special is that it can do that while having VLO stealth, huge array of sensors, great sensor fusion, incredible EA/EW capabilities and carries good weapons load and huge fuel load internally. In combat, 4th gen fighters would need to carry 2-3 EFTs, external weapons and targeting pod which would make them significalty less maneuverable and slower. In light air-to-air configurations there is likely not big differences between F-35 and 4th gen fighters.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 10:44
by zero-one
firebase99 wrote:"the F35 is NOT more maneuverable than your average 4th gen fighter "


I don't see anything wrong from what he said.
Basically he just acknowledged that unlike the F-22 which has a substantial and obvious advantage in maneuverability compared to all aircraft (host annoyingly had to add "in the US inventory") while the F-35 is not like that.

From the beginning, the F-35's kinematic performance was always said to be as maneuverable as the best 4th gens, not average 4th gens.

Lets examine his narrative, he was comparing it to F-15s, F-16s and F-22s.
F-15: Most maneuverable 4th gen at high speed and high altitude (above 30k) you can argue Typhoon
F-16: Most maneuverable 4th gen at high speed and medium altitude (around 10 -20k) again you can argue Typhoon.
So the F-35 is in the same class as those guys, which is pretty much at the pinnacle of 4th gen performance.
Sure the F-35 is bit better in some areas, a bit worse in others and basically on par in most areas. Bottomline is that its not more maneuverable, it's simply on the same ball park.

The F-22 is where he draws the line, he says conscious decisions were made that allowed engineers to know from the onset that they wouldn't achieve Raptor like performance.
But thats okay he says, the mission of the F-35 isn't specifically focused on air dominance but is simply to "compliment the Raptor" in it's air dominance role. Detractors call these decisions compromises but if your so called compromise simply gives you Viper like maneuverability with Hornet like high Alpha, then I can sleep with that

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 11:24
by Corsair1963
After all of this time we're still comparing "Apples and Oranges". :?

Honestly, any debate WVR comparing a "clean" 4th Generation Fighter with a "clean" 5th Generation Fighter (F-35) is immaterial and doesn't reflex the real world of Aerial Combat. As no F-15, F-16, or whatever is going into combat clean. As a matter of fact in all cases they would have external weapons and most likely external fuel too... :shock:


So, for some to waste everybody's time. While, arguing "X" has a slight advantage in this or that aspect of the flight envelope is moot. As in the ""Final Analysis" it means squat....


Of course that doesn't even touch on the F-22's and F-35's advantages in Stealth and Sensor Fusion. Which, also play a role WVR. Which, makes this debate even more absurd. If, that is possible.....

:doh:

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 13:45
by zero-one
Agree with you there Corsair1963. 2 thumbs up.

The replies we had were simply to go in depth to the comments made by the F-35 pilot when he just flat out said "No" when asked if the F-35 was more maneuverable than 4th gens.

Detractors could very well spin this into....."O ya see, F-35 pilots admit the F-35 is a brick..Pierre Spray, Vietnam, blah blah blah" We just jumped the gun.

I'd also like to add that equating maneuverability with WVR is just part of the picture. As we learned in the F-35A vs B vs C thread. Maneuverability encompasses so much more than just ACM. Its also very useful in BVR combat and even aids in carrier approaches.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 14:42
by f-16adf
Jello said basically the same thing in his Q&A on AI. But I think he meant F-35C.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 14:56
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote: I think what makes F-35 special is that it can do that while having VLO stealth, huge array of sensors, great sensor fusion, incredible EA/EW capabilities and carries good weapons load and huge fuel load internally. In combat, 4th gen fighters would need to carry 2-3 EFTs, external weapons and targeting pod which would make them significalty less maneuverable and slower. In light air-to-air configurations there is likely not big differences between F-35 and 4th gen fighters.


I see this the same way. And even the F-35 would be inferior in a light A to A configuration, so what? Today, EW, Sensors, Sensor fusion and Stealth seems more imported then maneuverability, top speed and climb rate.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 15:11
by mixelflick
I think the F-35's maneuverability is on a level above the F-16's and 18's, and I'll tell you why. We know it can accelerate like a CLEAN Viper. The sustained turn might not be that good but the instantaneous turns are on another level altogether. It's also said it can point it's nose like a Super Hornet. I actually disagree there.. In high alpha, it appears even better than a SH. And of course, the SH's nose pointing authority gets compromised with external loads so...

You wind up with something that's capable of the best of the best of 4th gen jets (and then some). Now add in all the sensor fusion, stealth etc. and you get an aircraft that performs much more effectively than any F-16/18 hybrid it's compared to, coming in just below the level of an F-22. And it is here, where I think it's much closer to an F-22 vs. an F-16 or 18.

If the Russians, Chinese or whoever want to beat this thing air to air, or air to ground (especially at the same price point), they're going to have to get up real early and bring their A plus game. And that's what we know about. God (and LM, LOL) only knows what other surprises it has in store for opposing aircraft and IADS's.

The F-35 is the Bo Jackson of combat aircraft :)

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 16:54
by zero-one
I think one reason why the F-35 maneuverability fiasco will never go away is because the Kinematics side of the F-35, impressive as it is, is probably it's weakest attribute in combat. Its still impressive, but not head and shoulders above the rest compared to all the other attributes like, Stealth, SA, payload and even range. Its a 5th gen plane with 4th gen kinematics.

mixelflick wrote: I think it's much closer to an F-22 vs. an F-16 or 18.


From this particular interview the narrative that the pilot seemed to be going for was that there was a substantial gap between the F-35 and F-22s aero performance. Or rather, there was a substantial gap between the F-22 and everything else.
He did say that the Raptor was far and away superior to any fighter by far. To which the host annoyingly added "In the US inventory" No, this guy knows the Flanker and Fulcrum's EM charts since the USAF has been flying those 2 air-frames for years now.

By the way, did they replace the AL-31 engines on those birds with PW-F100s or GE F110s? Hard to believe they're still using the original engines since the early 90s

Jon Beesley was the test pilot who said that it was close to the Raptor.
However he flew early models of both. I'm not sure if he was already able to explore the max envelopes of both planes.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 19:39
by wrightwing
If you can rate like a clean Viper, and radius like a clean Hornet, and add superior acceleration and high AoA, you're more maneuverable than 4th generation aircraft in combat. They aren't flying in airshow configurations. That's the kinematic niche the F-35 fills. It's got more tricks, aside from the stealth and sensor fusion.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 20:50
by charlielima223
Regardless this was a good listen.

He did say however that he hasn't had a chance to go out and "really rage" in the aircraft. It seems like his main focus is developmental and operational testing of sensors and weapons. In this interview it seems like flight envelope isn't his main focus.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 23:11
by popcorn
Seems to parallel the comments from that pilot who would choose a clean hornet to fly for fun...but bottom line the F-35 is the plane they would take to war.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 02:07
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:Agree with you there Corsair1963. 2 thumbs up.

The replies we had were simply to go in depth to the comments made by the F-35 pilot when he just flat out said "No" when asked if the F-35 was more maneuverable than 4th gens.

Detractors could very well spin this into....."O ya see, F-35 pilots admit the F-35 is a brick..Pierre Spray, Vietnam, blah blah blah" We just jumped the gun.

I'd also like to add that equating maneuverability with WVR is just part of the picture. As we learned in the F-35A vs B vs C thread. Maneuverability encompasses so much more than just ACM. Its also very useful in BVR combat and even aids in carrier approaches.



Honestly, the big question is when was this Video taken??? This is critical as the flight envelope of the F-35. Wasn't fully expanded until fairly recently.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 02:38
by quicksilver
charlielima223 wrote:Regardless this was a good listen.

He did say however that he hasn't had a chance to go out and "really rage" in the aircraft. It seems like his main focus is developmental and operational testing of sensors and weapons. In this interview it seems like flight envelope isn't his main focus.


Au contraire. He is/was a DT pilot, and spoke specifically about ‘flight sciences’ testing which is all about handling qualities and envelope expansion.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 10:34
by Corsair1963
We all know what they say.........."The devil is in the details" :wink:

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2019, 20:23
by white_lightning35
So, will this put to rest the talk of some posters of how the f-35 is clearly more maneuverable than 4th gen fighters, or are we still going to see countless pages on this forum dedicated to comparing airshow videos in order to gauge combat ability?

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 05:37
by Scorpion1alpha
charlielima223 wrote:Regardless this was a good listen.

He did say however that he hasn't had a chance to go out and "really rage" in the aircraft. It seems like his main focus is developmental and operational testing of sensors and weapons. In this interview it seems like flight envelope isn't his main focus.


quicksilver wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:Regardless this was a good listen.

He did say however that he hasn't had a chance to go out and "really rage" in the aircraft. It seems like his main focus is developmental and operational testing of sensors and weapons. In this interview it seems like flight envelope isn't his main focus.


Au contraire. He is/was a DT pilot, and spoke specifically about ‘flight sciences’ testing which is all about handling qualities and envelope expansion.


cl223, quicksilver is correct. Also, even though Maj. Searcy may also be tasked and may be responsible for testing of certain specific systems during DT, as a qualified Lightning pilot, he would have to know exactly the level of performance of the jet.

white_lightning35 wrote:So, will this put to rest the talk of some posters of how the f-35 is clearly more maneuverable than 4th gen fighters, or are we still going to see countless pages on this forum dedicated to comparing airshow videos in order to gauge combat ability?


It should, but I’m betting it won’t.

Funny thing is (or maybe it isn’t funny for some), I can think of at least 3 other Lightning pilots who have publicly stated in the past that the F-35’s maneuverability is only on par with the best 4th Gen fighters and that it’ll NEVER equal the F-22’s level of maneuverability, despite what some F-35 fans that wants to put it in the Raptor’s level.

The reaction is literally always the same and predictable. These statements appear, some Lightning fans immediately ignore it and / or quickly point out some other feature about it (downplaying the maneuverability part as not important) and go from there. Then…they see a demo of it doing some post stall maneuvers or a turn (that others have been doing for years) and the Lightning crowd roars again praising its agility.

Maj. Searcy is just the latest Lightning pilot that I’ve heard to have publicly stated what some in the Lightning fanbase has to understand: the jet is built from day one to fulfill a role and has a certain responsibility. In the US at least, it is to compliment the F-22. It is the low end of a Hi-Lo mix. It was made primarily for air-to-ground, but with some overlapping and credible air-to-air capability as is the inverse with the F-22: primarily air-to-air with credible air-to-ground capability. One cannot totally replace the other in their primary roles.

The Lightning is a worthy replacement for the legendary F-16. It has stealth and the sensors to operate and survive in anti-access / anti-denial areas that the F-16 cannot without a possible high loss rate and attack the targets within those areas. If F-22s isn’t around, it can defend itself and take out the occasional air threat that may be in the area or reroute itself away from the air threat. In a maneuvering fight (which the Lightning pilot(s) will have to answer a lot of questions as to why it did to if it ever ends up there) it will have a level of maneuverability that will be slightly better than, equal in others and slightly lagging in certain parameters compared to potential threats that it’ll likely face now and in the immediate future.

Certain people in the Lightning fanbase needs to understand this. Otherwise, they’ll continue to be disingenuous to themselves.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 06:20
by Corsair1963
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:Regardless this was a good listen.

He did say however that he hasn't had a chance to go out and "really rage" in the aircraft. It seems like his main focus is developmental and operational testing of sensors and weapons. In this interview it seems like flight envelope isn't his main focus.


quicksilver wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:Regardless this was a good listen.

He did say however that he hasn't had a chance to go out and "really rage" in the aircraft. It seems like his main focus is developmental and operational testing of sensors and weapons. In this interview it seems like flight envelope isn't his main focus.


Au contraire. He is/was a DT pilot, and spoke specifically about ‘flight sciences’ testing which is all about handling qualities and envelope expansion.


cl223, quicksilver is correct. Also, even though Maj. Searcy may also be tasked and may be responsible for testing of certain specific systems during DT, as a qualified Lightning pilot, he would have to know exactly the level of performance of the jet.

white_lightning35 wrote:So, will this put to rest the talk of some posters of how the f-35 is clearly more maneuverable than 4th gen fighters, or are we still going to see countless pages on this forum dedicated to comparing airshow videos in order to gauge combat ability?


It should, but I’m betting it won’t.

Funny thing is (or maybe it isn’t funny for some), I can think of at least 3 other Lightning pilots who have publicly stated in the past that the F-35’s maneuverability is only on par with the best 4th Gen fighters and that it’ll NEVER equal the F-22’s level of maneuverability, despite what some F-35 fans that wants to put it in the Raptor’s level.

The reaction is literally always the same and predictable. These statements appear, some Lightning fans immediately ignore it and / or quickly point out some other feature about it (downplaying the maneuverability part as not important) and go from there. Then…they see a demo of it doing some post stall maneuvers or a turn (that others have been doing for years) and the Lightning crowd roars again praising its agility.

Maj. Searcy is just the latest Lightning pilot that I’ve heard to have publicly stated what some in the Lightning fanbase has to understand: the jet is built from day one to fulfill a role and has a certain responsibility. In the US at least, it is to compliment the F-22. It is the low end of a Hi-Lo mix. It was made primarily for air-to-ground, but with some overlapping and credible air-to-air capability as is the inverse with the F-22: primarily air-to-air with credible air-to-ground capability. One cannot totally replace the other in their primary roles.

The Lightning is a worthy replacement for the legendary F-16. It has stealth and the sensors to operate and survive in anti-access / anti-denial areas that the F-16 cannot without a possible high loss rate and attack the targets within those areas. If F-22s isn’t around, it can defend itself and take out the occasional air threat that may be in the area or reroute itself away from the air threat. In a maneuvering fight (which the Lightning pilot(s) will have to answer a lot of questions as to why it did to if it ever ends up there) it will have a level of maneuverability that will be slightly better than, equal in others and slightly lagging in certain parameters compared to potential threats that it’ll likely face now and in the immediate future.

Certain people in the Lightning fanbase needs to understand this. Otherwise, they’ll continue to be disingenuous to themselves.



So, three out of hundreds of F-35 Pilots. :?

Honestly, why not quote somebody with experience in both the F-22 and F-35 like Lt. Col. David "Chip" Berke (Ret) and/or Col. Paul “Max” Moga???



https://www.businessinsider.com/f35-pil ... ing-2017-1

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 06:44
by Corsair1963
Jon Beesley former F-22 and F-35 Test Pilot..


In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only
the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006.
As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs.
According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35
have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very
nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The
"subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can
get." Beesley said.


The aircraft flies in "large measure like the F-22, but it's smaller, and stiffer" than the Raptor however, Beesley
explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the
test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor,
is also the same man who is
responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters
determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so
comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.
What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and poststall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the
Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases.
Turning at the higher
Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and
3/5
comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.


Ironically, the Navy version, which has larger wings but a lower G limit of 7.5G, has the best turning capability of the
three F-35 versions Beesley explained. The Air Force version, meanwhile, has the best acceleration and is rated for
9Gs, Beesley said. Davis, explaining that the Marine Corps deemphasizes manoeuvrability in its air combat
doctrine, said that the short take off, vertical landing (STOVL) USMC plane has a 7G limit. Beesley said that the
aircraft makes up for the lower G limit by offering the flexibility in basing required by the Marines. Nor does the
STOVL give up too much in range because of the engine driven lift fan installed behind the cockpit, Beesley said.
The jet has "a range of more than 500 miles", while the Air Force and Navy planes both have ranges greater than
600 miles, Beesley explained, adding that the USAF version has as much internal fuel capacity as the larger twin
engined F-22 Raptor.

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.

Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as "supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there,"
Beesley explained. "In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter," Beesley added, referring to that
aircrafts' much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability.


download/file.php?id=23836

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 06:57
by Scorpion1alpha
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
white_lightning35 wrote:So, will this put to rest the talk of some posters of how the f-35 is clearly more maneuverable than 4th gen fighters, or are we still going to see countless pages on this forum dedicated to comparing airshow videos in order to gauge combat ability?

It should, but I’m betting it won’t.


Look above. My point made.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 08:49
by botsing
Scorpion1alpha wrote:Look above. My point made.

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

:mrgreen:

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

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 10:08
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote: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,)

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 11:15
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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,)


I doubt Mr. Beesley is "guessing" how the F-35 would perform in relationship to the F-22. Nonetheless, he does concede the latters advantages at higher portions of the flight envelope. Of course how useful that would be is another question mark. Especially, as it relates to IFR....

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 11:52
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:I doubt Mr. Beesley is "guessing" how the F-35 would perform in relationship to the F-22. Nonetheless, he does concede the latters advantages at higher portions of the flight envelope. Of course how useful that would be is another question mark. Especially, as it relates to IFR....


I'm pretty sure he wasn't guessing. But he flew both planes in the early phases of their testing. There are specific test points to be hit which are in the early phases of envelope expansion that are easy to hit for both planes.

I.E. Mr. Beasley could have been tasked to test both planes within their 5G envelope at subsonic, 20K. Something that both can do relatively easily. His observation was that, both aircraft are evenly matched.

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.

Its not contradicting anything, there are parts of the envelope where the F-16 can hang with the F-22. But then again we have plenty of reports where Raptor pilots say they enjoy substantial maneuvering advantages over anything including the F-16. Same goes for the F-35.

I think Kinematics will actually become a bit more relevant in the age of Stealth. Specially when you have a Stealth vs Stealth scenario. It will still be largely BVR but the prospects of a Merge is more plausible when detection ranges are reduced

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 14:26
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote: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,)


We also need to decide what configurations we are comparing. F-22 and F-35 will almost always be flying totally clean as all the weapons, fuel and other systems are internal. All 4th gen fighter will be flying clean (or close to it) in airshows most of the time. In real world combat configurations they will have very lower performance than in clean configurations, sometimes really significantly. F-35 really shines in air-to-ground configurations where it's still Mach 1.6 and 7-9G machine which no 4th gen fighter can match. In air-to-air configurations or in clean configurations, I have no trouble accepting that 4th gen fighters can have equal or sometimes (clean or lightly loaded) even better performance. It seems like even F-22 doesn't always have much better performance than 4th gen fighters.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 15:24
by zero-one
hornetfinn wrote:We also need to decide what configurations we are comparing.


Yes I understand. This is always one of the major counter arguments we give when comparing the F-35 against 4th gens. The F-35 will fight clean while 4th gens will be weighed down by missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, sensor pods, jamming pods etc.

To visualize the comparison better, lets look at speed. Because unlike maneuverability, speed is easier to represent.
Your Typical high performance 4th gen is Mach 2 capable when clean, the F-35 is Mach 1.6 when clean.
'Configured for combat however, 4th gens will be lucky to get to Mach 1.5, but I think they can when configured for just A-A.
the F-35 remains at Mach 1.6 when configured for A-A.

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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 15:43
by quicksilver
Can’t believe some take the bait and run down the rabbit hole once more...

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 15:54
by swiss
Scorpion1alpha wrote:It should, but I’m betting it won’t.

Funny thing is (or maybe it isn’t funny for some), I can think of at least 3 other Lightning pilots who have publicly stated in the past that the F-35’s maneuverability is only on par with the best 4th Gen fighters and that it’ll NEVER equal the F-22’s level of maneuverability, despite what some F-35 fans that wants to put it in the Raptor’s level.

The reaction is literally always the same and predictable. These statements appear, some Lightning fans immediately ignore it and / or quickly point out some other feature about it (downplaying the maneuverability part as not important) and go from there. Then…they see a demo of it doing some post stall maneuvers or a turn (that others have been doing for years) and the Lightning crowd roars again praising its agility.

Maj. Searcy is just the latest Lightning pilot that I’ve heard to have publicly stated what some in the Lightning fanbase has to understand: the jet is built from day one to fulfill a role and has a certain responsibility. In the US at least, it is to compliment the F-22. It is the low end of a Hi-Lo mix. It was made primarily for air-to-ground, but with some overlapping and credible air-to-air capability as is the inverse with the F-22: primarily air-to-air with credible air-to-ground capability. One cannot totally replace the other in their primary roles.

The Lightning is a worthy replacement for the legendary F-16. It has stealth and the sensors to operate and survive in anti-access / anti-denial areas that the F-16 cannot without a possible high loss rate and attack the targets within those areas. If F-22s isn’t around, it can defend itself and take out the occasional air threat that may be in the area or reroute itself away from the air threat. In a maneuvering fight (which the Lightning pilot(s) will have to answer a lot of questions as to why it did to if it ever ends up there) it will have a level of maneuverability that will be slightly better than, equal in others and slightly lagging in certain parameters compared to potential threats that it’ll likely face now and in the immediate future.

Certain people in the Lightning fanbase needs to understand this. Otherwise, they’ll continue to be disingenuous to themselves.


Thanks a lot for your honest words. :thumb: 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." :wink:

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).

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 16:27
by f-16adf
Yes, there are some that do tend to go too "overboard" on the F-35. 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.


I think the F-35 is a great jet, and a real game changer. It is the future. Our teen series (legacy) jets are too old, tired, and had their day back in the 1980's-90's.


However, I think that it becomes rather dangerous when some try to imply that the F-35 is nearly an F-22; or it can out accelerate a Eurofighter Typhoon- with no proof. Or goes contrary to what other pilots have said.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 20:38
by 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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 21:18
by 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-

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 21:37
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 21:49
by 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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 22:31
by swiss
quicksilver wrote: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.

f-16adf wrote: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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 22:33
by wrightwing
f-16adf wrote: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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 22:45
by 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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 23:02
by sprstdlyscottsmn
f-16adf wrote: 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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 00:37
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
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.....

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 01:15
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
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..... :wink:

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 01:18
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
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..... :D

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 02:13
by wrightwing
f-16adf wrote: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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 05:54
by Scorpion1alpha
botsing wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:Look above. My point made.

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

:mrgreen:

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.

swiss wrote:Thanks a lot for your honest words. :thumb: 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." :wink:

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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 07:57
by zero-one
Scorpion1alpha wrote: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.

Corsair1963 wrote:
zero-one wrote: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 :doh:

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

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 09:27
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
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 :doh:

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??? :?

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 10:05
by wrightwing
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 10:40
by zero-one
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 11:03
by zero-one
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?

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 11:36
by Corsair1963
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......... :?

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 11:37
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 12:02
by zero-one
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

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 14:31
by marsavian
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 14:35
by swiss
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 14:57
by icemaverick
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 15:30
by zero-one
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 16:33
by vilters
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 16:38
by vilters
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 17:37
by marsavian
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 19:35
by basher54321
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.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 20:12
by f-16adf
They were fighting early 1980's F-16MLU's with the Pratt F100-220?

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 20:49
by wrightwing
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.

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


Nope. What that says is that the F-35 has sufficient kinematics, even in that condition, to best an F-16. Dolby Hanche has stated repeatedly, that the F-35 sticks to the F-16 Like glue, and easily puts the F-16 on the defensive. Other F-35 pilots have used terms like eye watering performance. Whatever advantages the F-16 has, are insufficient to gain the offensive/shake the F-35 that is offensive. This is after starting from the neutral, defensive, and offensive. I suggest you revisit the Favorite F-35 quotes and Out of the Shadows threads, again.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 21:21
by f-16adf
They appear to be very old F-16MLU's with the Pratt F100 motor. There are many HUD images from Rafales and Typhoons having a field day with the same ancient MLU's on google. For instance the AdA even boasted a few years ago about the Rafale achieving a 6-2 kill/loss at Nellis against the F-16. Lo and behold the F-16's that they 'so beat up on' were under-powered Pratt Block 25 or 32's. Which is completely unimpressive-

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2019, 23:55
by Corsair1963
f-16adf wrote:They appear to be very old F-16MLU's with the Pratt F100 motor. There are many HUD images from Rafales and Typhoons having a field day with the same ancient MLU's on google. For instance the AdA even boasted a few years ago about the Rafale achieving a 6-2 kill/loss at Nellis against the F-16. Lo and behold the F-16's that they 'so beat up on' were under-powered Pratt Block 25 or 32's. Which is completely unimpressive-



While, the F-35 is doing over 20 to 1 against those same F-16's.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 00:46
by f-16adf
I really don't think there is anything special about any jet beating a MLU that came out in 1981. Be it a Rafale, EF, Grip-hen, Raptor, or F-35.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 02:19
by Corsair1963
f-16adf wrote:I really don't think there is anything special about any jet beating a MLU that came out in 1981. Be it a Rafale, EF, Grip-hen, Raptor, or F-35.



Those early F-16's still have excellence flight performance with good thrust to weight. Remember, later models of the F-16 had more powerful engines. Yet, they also had more weight.



So, I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the older F-16's in the Aggressor Role.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 02:29
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
f-16adf wrote:I really don't think there is anything special about any jet beating a MLU that came out in 1981. Be it a Rafale, EF, Grip-hen, Raptor, or F-35.



Those early F-16's still have excellence flight performance with good thrust to weight. Remember, later models of the F-16 had more powerful engines. Yet, they also had more weight.



So, I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the older F-16's in the Aggressor Role.

Exactly. They're flying clean with no pylons. That's still a pretty nimble adversary.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 07:23
by zero-one
wrightwing wrote:
Nope. What that says is that the F-35 has sufficient kinematics, even in that condition, to best an F-16. Dolby Hanche has stated repeatedly, that the F-35 sticks to the F-16 Like glue, and easily puts the F-16 on the defensive. Other F-35 pilots have used terms like eye watering performance. Whatever advantages the F-16 has, are insufficient to gain the offensive/shake the F-35 that is offensive. This is after starting from the neutral, defensive, and offensive. I suggest you revisit the Favorite F-35 quotes and Out of the Shadows threads, again.


You're preaching to the choir here. I know those statements and use them frequently to defend the F-35 against the Pierre Spray club.

The only time I go against the F-35 is when people compare it to the F-22 and somehow make it seem like its just as good or even better than the Raptor in A-A. Well I'm sorry, the admin, Gen. Mike Hostage and I, all have the same opinions about that. It's a great A-A platform, but its not as good as the Raptor.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 07:26
by f-16adf
I don't dismiss the MLU, but as I said comparing a jet that has probably easily over 8-10,000 hours on it to a basically brand new jet really does not say much. If you look in the "F-22 v Rafale" thread it was that Cavok/Halloween kid who tried to say his beloved Rafale came to Nevada and had a field day with our Nellis based Vipers. Yes, the Rafale did come out the victor. But as I was trying to tell him. A 2005 model Rafale beating an under-powered Viper with FY 84.... or 85... stamped on its tail makes for a near laughable comparison.


And if we are going to use this Combat Aircraft article as a criterion we must also include on the fourth pg (33) what this pilot (Lt. Colonel Knight) also said, he states: "I typically tell new pilots that the F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and the F/A-18 when it comes to visual range maneuvering."

This statement is very similar to what the F-35A pilot said on Jello's Fighter Pilot Podcast video (which was quoted on the first page of this thread).

And it also basically matches what the 2 Eglin F-35 pilots had to say when posed the near identical question.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 08:46
by Corsair1963
I have my doubts about Rafales having a field day against F-16's at "Red Flag"??? Do you have a source???


Also, you have to consider many factors when judging an Air Exercise. For example do we know the ROE and the specific numbers and types??? Which, is just for starters....

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 12:30
by f-16adf
The AdA Rafale/F-16 thing is a video (in French).

There also may be a written encounter, but the final score was 6-2 I think. Need a little time to find both links.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 14:00
by zero-one
I really don't agree with the whole Generations comparison.
Because realistically if war were to break out right now. The USAF would deploy F-22s and F-35s as the tip of it's offensive spear while Russia and China would be comprised of advanced Flanker variants, France would deploy Rafale's and Britain would go with Typhoons.
They are all from the same era.
It's more realistic when you get to a war scenario.

Going back to the Rafale vs F-16. The Rafale is France's 21st century Era fighter. (2000 - Present). the F-22, Typhoon, F-35, Su-35 and Gripen all take advantage of technologies within the same era. Some, better than others.

Using the Generations method, comparing the Rafale to the F-22 would be unfair because its a 5th gen against a 4th gen.
comparing the F-16 to the Rafale would be fair because they're both 4th gens.

Using the Era method, comparing the Cold War Era F-16 block 30 or 50 to the 21st century Rafale shows you why the Rafale will have the upper hand.

Remember the Rafale is France's answer to the Su-27 just as the F-22 is the USAF's answer to it. It had a development budget only slightly lower than the ATF program. So for the Rafale to have a 6 - 2 win record against the F-16 is actually quite disappointing. With just a bit more money, the USAF produced a plane that can get 244-0 kill records against F-15s and F-16s.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 15:30
by vilters
Come on guys.

When comparing aircraft results you absolutely need to know the load-out.

In the 1980-1990's period all Belgian F-16A flew clean while the F-16B flew with CLT.
(These days it is rare to find a clean bird.)

When the Mirage 2000 came over on DACT, the F-16 clean and Mirage 2000 with wing bags had the same fuel reserve when rejoining the pattern after a partol.

In A2A scenario's when both where clean, the F-16 always had the upper hand because they could play more and longer with their fuel.

In a A2A with a clean F-16 and a Mirage 2000 with bags the ROE limited the F-16 to military power. (And they still won)

Mirage 2000 had the upper hand in RWR and Jammers.

Compare a Rafale and an F-16 when they both have wing bags and eggs. It will be close, and up to pilot capability and fuel state.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 16:26
by swiss
zero-one wrote: It had a development budget only slightly lower than the ATF program.


Are you sure about this?

Well the Rafale is a top notch 4 gen fighter. And at least the best Russian/European plane in Air to Air and air to ground.

And i would put an F-15/SH with AESA over the Su-35. The Grippen E is not even delivered to the Swedish AF. IIRC that will be in 2021 at best.

vilters wrote:Compare a Rafale and an F-16 when they both have wing bags and eggs. It will be close, and up to pilot capability and fuel state.


The Rafale has 50% more internal Fuel. So the F-16 have to use 1 bag to have the same amount of fuel.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 16:54
by vilters
"Amount of fuel" is an non significant number.

Combine "amount" with "fuel burn rates" over mission types.

F-16A clean (6.700 lbs) could be empty in 5 minutes flat ( Cdt B.G. airshow), or take pretty close to 3 hrs (Maj E.V.) both around 1985 if my memory is still OK.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 17:15
by zero-one
swiss wrote:
zero-one wrote: It had a development budget only slightly lower than the ATF program.


Are you sure about this?


Wikipedia lists the program cost at $62.7B slightly lower than the ATF's $66B.
It also notes that the Typhoon program cost was 37B pounds according to the National Audit office. That translates to around $70B in 2007 dollars when the audit was made.

If you have more accurate figures than please share.

The Grippen, Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 were all responses to the alleged threat the Su-27 presented. The British and French claimed that the Typhoon and the Rafale were in the same class as the F-22 in overall capabilities. I still remember watching a Discovery channel documentary where a Typhoon pilot said "While the Americans invested in Stealth technology, we decided a different approach, super agility" They really wanted to make it seem like their 21st century planes were in the Raptor's league. So why not.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 17:53
by f-16adf
Just guessing, I think both Rafale and F-16MLU were clean.


Here is part of the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHSGSX3tfPc







On a side note. A Navy guy that flew the F-16N with VF-126 and also had a couple thousand hours in the Tomcat said that when both jets met on the range; the F-16N (which was clean) outlasted the Tomcat (which was clean), and the N Vipers still had enough fuel remaining to fight each other.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 18:50
by swiss
vilters wrote:"Amount of fuel" is an non significant number.

Combine "amount" with "fuel burn rates" over mission types.

F-16A clean (6.700 lbs) could be empty in 5 minutes flat ( Cdt B.G. airshow), or take pretty close to 3 hrs (Maj E.V.) both around 1985 if my memory is still OK.


Agreed. I assume the Rafale and a F-16 Bl. 30-50 have roughly the same burn rates. Especially when the F-16 has a centerline bag.

zero-one wrote:
Wikipedia lists the program cost at $62.7B slightly lower than the ATF's $66B.
It also notes that the Typhoon program cost was 37B pounds according to the National Audit office. That translates to around $70B in 2007 dollars when the audit was made.

If you have more accurate figures than please share.


No. I was just surprised, that the budget was nearly on the same level.

zero-one wrote:The Grippen, Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 were all responses to the alleged threat the Su-27 presented. The British and French claimed that the Typhoon and the Rafale were in the same class as the F-22 in overall capabilities. I still remember watching a Discovery channel documentary where a Typhoon pilot said "While the Americans invested in Stealth technology, we decided a different approach, super agility" They really wanted to make it seem like their 21st century planes were in the Raptor's league. So why not.


No doubt they may be all close in agility.

But agility is one of the less imported factors today. And when it comes to sensors, the order seems clear with the available information we have. Raptor, Rafale, EF, Gripen.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 19:23
by zero-one
swiss wrote:No doubt they may be all close in agility.

But agility is one of the less imported factors today. And when it comes to sensors, the order seems clear with the available information we have. Raptor, Rafale, EF, Gripen.


I'll agree with that to a degree. In the high subsonic where most dogfights traditionally occurred, they may be comparable when all are flying clean.

But in the extreme slow speed and extreme high speed/supersonic parts of the envelope the F-22 will enjoy a significant advantage. Now when you consider combat loads then the Raptor will have a significant advantage in all parts of the envelope.

Should a dogfight occur today there is no telling if the aircraft involved will still stay in the traditional high subsonic speeds. With so much advancements in aerodynamics future WVR combat may actually happen all over the maneuvering envelope with most starting of supersonic and some even getting into post-stall.

I would say the F-22 has the advantage against all air superiority fighters in all aspects.

1.) SA: the F-35 is the closest competitor, but although the F-35 has more sensors, their primary long range A-A sensor is their Active radar where the F-22's APG-77v1 is bigger and may have a longer range than the APG-81. So in theory the F-22 will see the bandit before the F-35 does.

2.) Stealth: Again It's closest competitor is the F-35 and while you could say they have the same level of VLO, I would give the F-22 a slight advantage due to super-cruise. The F-22 can have a lower IR signature than the F-35 when both are at supersonic speeds. Although the F-35 has more passive detection methods.

3.) Kinematics: No brainier as we can all agree the F-22 is really in a class of its own. the Closest competitor may actually be the Su-57 when the Izdeliye 30 gets into production.

To me, these 3 are the top most important attributes of a fighter ranked accordingly. Although some may interchange SA and Stealth.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 20:50
by swiss
zero-one wrote:I'll agree with that to a degree. In the high subsonic where most dogfights traditionally occurred, they may be comparable when all are flying clean.

But in the extreme slow speed and extreme high speed/supersonic parts of the envelope the F-22 will enjoy a significant advantage. Now when you consider combat loads then the Raptor will have a significant advantage in all parts of the envelope.

Should a dogfight occur today there is no telling if the aircraft involved will still stay in the traditional high subsonic speeds. With so much advancements in aerodynamics future WVR combat may actually happen all over the maneuvering envelope with most starting of supersonic and some even getting into post-stall.

I would say the F-22 has the advantage against all air superiority fighters in all aspects.

1.) SA: the F-35 is the closest competitor, but although the F-35 has more sensors, their primary long range A-A sensor is their Active radar where the F-22's APG-77v1 is bigger and may have a longer range than the APG-81. So in theory the F-22 will see the bandit before the F-35 does.

2.) Stealth: Again It's closest competitor is the F-35 and while you could say they have the same level of VLO, I would give the F-22 a slight advantage due to super-cruise. The F-22 can have a lower IR signature than the F-35 when both are at supersonic speeds. Although the F-35 has more passive detection methods.

3.) Kinematics: No brainier as we can all agree the F-22 is really in a class of its own. the Closest competitor may actually be the Su-57 when the Izdeliye 30 gets into production.

To me, these 3 are the top most important attributes of a fighter ranked accordingly. Although some may interchange SA and Stealth.


What can i say. I fully agree with you. The Raptor is the best air-superiority machine ever made. Roughly 20 years ahed of everything else. Maybe when the F-35 reach his FOC, he has the advantage in BVR thanks to his sensors and the Meteor. But i really think Pilots will avoid slow speed fights with all costs. With all of this advanced IR missiles and some Fighters who can do an "over the head shot" and shot down a target directly behind them. Speed and energy is live.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 22:10
by SpudmanWP
While the F-22 will in all likelihood detect a contact before the F-35, the F-35 likely has a better chance of properly identifying the contact per the ROE.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 22:34
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SpudmanWP wrote:While the F-22 will in all likelihood detect a contact before the F-35, the F-35 likely has a better chance of properly identifying the contact per the ROE.

Especially if VID is required. The zoom level of EOTS is mind boggling.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 00:28
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:While the F-22 will in all likelihood detect a contact before the F-35, the F-35 likely has a better chance of properly identifying the contact per the ROE.



The true fight will be at BVR and the F-35 exceeds in that arena vs F-22. Plus, that gap will only grow with time.



So, while the F-22 has an advantage High and Fast over the F-35. The real question is will that allow the Raptor to be more successful than the F-35 in the "Air Superiority Arena??? I personally have my doubts......

A good example of this is the combat records (kills) of the Mach 2.5 F-15 vs the Mach 2 F-16.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 01:28
by vilters
You can not actually compare kill ratio's between the 15 and 16.
They are completely different animals with different missions.
While the F-16 was initially build as a pure light weight dogfighter, it became a little do it all and shifted more and more to A2G over the many years.

In actual USAF combat the F-15 flew more cover for the A2G F-16's. (or clear the sky before the F-16's came in.)

Both have an magnificent reputation, but each in its role.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 04:15
by white_lightning35
Corsair1963 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:While the F-22 will in all likelihood detect a contact before the F-35, the F-35 likely has a better chance of properly identifying the contact per the ROE.



The true fight will be at BVR and the F-35 exceeds in that arena vs F-22. Plus, that gap will only grow with time.



So, while the F-22 has an advantage High and Fast over the F-35. The real question is will that allow the Raptor to be more successful than the F-35 in the "Air Superiority Arena??? I personally have my doubts......

A good example of this is the combat records (kills) of the Mach 2.5 F-15 vs the Mach 2 F-16.


Why are you still so delusional? How many times do people who actually know about the capabilities of the two jets have to say the f-22 is better before you listen? This forum has so many great resources but you feel the urge to spew your uninformed drivel constantly, arguing with the emotional and intellectual capacity of a child. Please grow up and use your brain. Thanks

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 04:45
by Corsair1963
white_lightning35 wrote:
Why are you still so delusional? How many times do people who actually know about the capabilities of the two jets have to say the f-22 is better before you listen? This forum has so many great resources but you feel the urge to spew your uninformed drivel constantly, arguing with the emotional and intellectual capacity of a child. Please grow up and use your brain. Thanks



What??? We have quoted a number of sources from pilots that have flown both the F-22 and F-35 like Max Moga and Chip Berke. Yet, their remarks don't support what you say at all. So, maybe your the one that in delusional....


Speaking of pilots that have flown both the F-22 and F-35. Jon Beesley which was a Test Pilot with both programs. Is quotes as saying "the only fighter with even parity in Air Combat to the F-35 was the F-22" (keyword "parity")

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 04:56
by Corsair1963
vilters wrote:You can not actually compare kill ratio's between the 15 and 16.
They are completely different animals with different missions.
While the F-16 was initially build as a pure light weight dogfighter, it became a little do it all and shifted more and more to A2G over the many years.

In actual USAF combat the F-15 flew more cover for the A2G F-16's. (or clear the sky before the F-16's came in.)

Both have an magnificent reputation, but each in its role.



Sorry, you can compare the end result. Which, is all that matters or did you forget what they're used for????

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 11:17
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:While the F-22 will in all likelihood detect a contact before the F-35, the F-35 likely has a better chance of properly identifying the contact per the ROE.

Especially if VID is required. The zoom level of EOTS is mind boggling.


Thats true, but if ROE's are that strict then the likelihood of WVR increases. And though I think both will perform spectaculaly in WVR, I think the F-22 will get more kills in that arena.

Also if we are going to take into account how they will be used. If VID becomes a requirement, F-35's will most likely just feed F-22 teams with more SA so that the Raptors can lob Slammers from 60,000 feet while at Mach 1.8. It decreases the requirement for either of them to get close and the F-35s will not be forced to reveal themselves by opening their weapons bays.

The F-22 can afford to open their bays because they are at 60K. There is a level of invulnerability when flying supersonic at 60k which is not present at mach 0.8, 30k Specially if you are VLO with the jamming capabilities of a 5th gen.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 11:50
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:I would say the F-22 has the advantage against all air superiority fighters in all aspects.

1.) SA: the F-35 is the closest competitor, but although the F-35 has more sensors, their primary long range A-A sensor is their Active radar where the F-22's APG-77v1 is bigger and may have a longer range than the APG-81. So in theory the F-22 will see the bandit before the F-35 does.

2.) Stealth: Again It's closest competitor is the F-35 and while you could say they have the same level of VLO, I would give the F-22 a slight advantage due to super-cruise. The F-22 can have a lower IR signature than the F-35 when both are at supersonic speeds. Although the F-35 has more passive detection methods.

3.) Kinematics: No brainier as we can all agree the F-22 is really in a class of its own. the Closest competitor may actually be the Su-57 when the Izdeliye 30 gets into production.

To me, these 3 are the top most important attributes of a fighter ranked accordingly. Although some may interchange SA and Stealth.


I'd say F-35 has some key advantages also when compared to F-22.

1. Numbers and availability. There are now about twice as many F-35s as F-22s around and in the future there will be something like 20 times as many F-35s as F-22s. Even in USAF alone there will be 10 times as many F-35s as F-22. Also F-35 seems to be able to achieve higher sortie rate and have better availability, even magnifying the issue.

2. Networking. Even if F-22 has very good networking capability especially between each other, F-35 has even better. Combined with point 1, they will work more as a large team and cover far wider geographical area. F-22 is far more of a lone big bad wolf. Networking combined with numbers is real force multiplier in real world as it allows far better SA and ability to have deeper magazine.

3. SA. I do think F-35 has better SA most of the time. F-22 has more powerful radar, but F-35 has the advantage of having very long range IRST system (EOTS), short range spherical IRST system (EO DAS) with multiple functions, better networking and better sensor fusion system (according to people who designed both). Combined with superior numbers, I doubt there are many instances where F-22 has better understanding what they are facing in the real world situations. Especially against low RCS targets where radar might not even be the primary sensor.

All in all, it doesn't really matter much which one is better. Both are overwhelmingly more capable in air-to-air combat than any other fighter jet now or in foreseeable future. It doesn't really matter if F-22 can rack up 200 to 0 kill ratio and F-35 "only" 20 to 0 or even 15 to 1. Both will be able to quickly gain air dominance against opponents even when heavily outnumbered. Of course it'd be pretty unlikely for F-35 to be outnumbered except in some very isolated cases. Neither will F-22 really as there will almost always be F-35s and even F-15, F-16 and (Super) Hornets around.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 12:53
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:While the F-22 will in all likelihood detect a contact before the F-35, the F-35 likely has a better chance of properly identifying the contact per the ROE.

Especially if VID is required. The zoom level of EOTS is mind boggling.


Thats true, but if ROE's are that strict then the likelihood of WVR increases. And though I think both will perform spectaculaly in WVR, I think the F-22 will get more kills in that arena.

Also if we are going to take into account how they will be used. If VID becomes a requirement, F-35's will most likely just feed F-22 teams with more SA so that the Raptors can lob Slammers from 60,000 feet while at Mach 1.8. It decreases the requirement for either of them to get close and the F-35s will not be forced to reveal themselves by opening their weapons bays.

The F-22 can afford to open their bays because they are at 60K. There is a level of invulnerability when flying supersonic at 60k which is not present at mach 0.8, 30k Specially if you are VLO with the jamming capabilities of a 5th gen.


I doubt that opening weapons bay doors will raise the RCS that much and even if it did, it will be something like 4-5 seconds open. It'd be very unlikely that it would be even detected by enemy radars and definitely not enough to allow tracking. It'd be gone already as soon as they are closed.

F-22 gets invulnerability through speed and altitude in addition to stealth, SA and EW. F-35 uses networking and co-operatio along with more advanced countermeasures. In WVR combat F-35 will have the better SA due to EO DAS and HMD, whereas F-22 has better performance.

I think we will see better integration of F-22 and F-35 in the future by using more common components and networking system (MADL or something totally new). There is potentially great benefits from this, especially when more and more F-35s will be around.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 15:22
by zero-one
hornetfinn wrote:
I'd say F-35 has some key advantages also when compared to F-22.


I'm not going to disagree with you there. But I have a few opinions about it.

1. Numbers and availability : The assigned mission will still dictate who does what. If all the F-22s and all the F-35s will be focused on air superiority then you're absolutely right. The overwhelming number of F-35s will give them an advantage. But just like in the gulf war were a smaller number of F-15s were tasked with CAP and the more numerous F-16s were tasked with strike missions resulting in F-15s getting most ot the kills, the F-22s and most ot the F-35s will also fall into simillar roles.


2. Networking. The impressive networking capabilities of the F-35 will not benefit other F-35s exclusively though. That info will be shared with F-22s who I think will be tasked with actually engaging enemy aircraft.

3. SA. : the thing about SA is, I think both planes have more than enough SA to engage a bandit. imagine a scenario where a Su-30 is detected by both planes. They both know its a Flanker, they both know its hostile, they both have all the relevant data they need to engage. But the F-35 knows its carrying 2 R-27s, 4 R-74s and 2 R-77, it also knows that The GIB is eating a sandwich.

Point is, yes the F-35 knows more, but most of it is icing on the cake in A-A. I still think that for an A-A mission there is nothing that the Apg-77/ALR-94 combo can't provide for the F-22 to give it's pilot all the SA he needs.

But I am not trying to contradict your points, they are valid for me.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 16:08
by mixelflick
The F-22 still has many advantages over the 35, not all of which are known. There's a reason the F-22 is barred for export, while the F-35 will be sold to whoever has the $ and cleared by the state department. Ponder that for a moment..

The Typhoon playing on the F-22's level? Perhaps, but with one very important caveat: Typhoon pilots were quick to acknowledge the F-22 has "overwhelming" BVR capabilities. Translation? They got waylaid in BVR.

What they're talking about was WVR, assuming the fight would have gotten to that (in the real world, it wouldn't). The Typhoon can turn with the F-22, provided it punched its tanks and was "clean" (or at least cleaner). That's an important point, because a totally clean Typhoon is.... unrealistic. If instead they referred to it being "cleaner" (meaning a few AAM's), that's a different story.

But again, in the real world the Raptor approaches a WVR fight with overwhelming SA advantages. It will dictate the range, speed, approach angle etc of the fight and it likely WON'T be any type of turning engagement. This was before the Raptor got the 9x btw, which is described as a "near BVR missile". You can bet it's for sure BVR when launched supersonic, which again is an advantage the Raptor has at its disposal.

Raptors vs. Typhoons isn't a scenario we can envision today, although it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility. Even so, I'd want a Raptor for sure vs. an F-35.

The known (and unknown) advantages it holds are simply too much to ignore...

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 19:53
by marsavian
Even so, I'd want a Raptor for sure vs. an F-35.

So an F-35 and F-22 square off and converge at range. The F-35 playing it safe switches off its radar so how does the F-22 spot the F-35 before it's spotted on EOTS/DAS ? That will be tough for the APG-77 to do against EOTS even it maybe more touch and go against DAS.

The Raptor is more specialized, a perfect stalking interceptor that can wreak havoc against the plethora of non/semi stealthy opponents it would face. It would spear opponents at the very tip of your offensive/defensive force where it's pretty clear who the bandits are. The F-35 however is the more rounded fighter which is probably more useful in the quantities it's going to be bought by everyone.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 20:09
by knowan
marsavian wrote:
Even so, I'd want a Raptor for sure vs. an F-35.

So an F-35 and F-22 square off and converge at range. The F-35 playing it safe switches off its radar so how does the F-22 spot the F-35 before it's spotted on EOTS/DAS ?


Little point switching off the radar, neither F-22 or F-35 ESM are likely to be sensitive enough to pick up LPI AESA beyond very short ranges.

Very high sensitivety is required to detect those emissions, which are only installed on dedicated ELINT platforms.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 20:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
knowan wrote:
marsavian wrote:
Even so, I'd want a Raptor for sure vs. an F-35.

So an F-35 and F-22 square off and converge at range. The F-35 playing it safe switches off its radar so how does the F-22 spot the F-35 before it's spotted on EOTS/DAS ?


Little point switching off the radar, neither F-22 or F-35 ESM are likely to be sensitive enough to pick up LPI AESA beyond very short ranges.

Very high sensitivety is required to detect those emissions, which are only installed on dedicated ELINT platforms.

You may want to rethink that. The AESA antenna of the "targeted" aircraft is picking up a signal four times stronger than that of the receiving antenna, and they are equivalent antennas.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 20:51
by knowan
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:You may want to rethink that. The AESA antenna of the "targeted" aircraft is picking up a signal four times stronger than that of the receiving antenna, and they are equivalent antennas.


I only have a layman's understanding of the topic, but as I understand it, coded pulses and frequency hoping by the emiting radar makes it harder for a hostile antenna to detect the emissions while not making it harder for its own receiver to pick up the reflected signal (because it knows what to look for; hostile receivers don't).

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 21:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
That much is correct. But you stated it was not sensitive enough. The APG-81/Barracuda combo has been stated to detect and jam the APG-77 of an F-22. Range was not given, but no other system has even ever claimed the ability to detect the emissions of an APG-77.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 21:04
by knowan
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That much is correct. But you stated it was not sensitive enough. The APG-81/Barracuda combo has been stated to detect and jam the APG-77 of an F-22. Range was not given, but no other system has even ever claimed the ability to detect the emissions of an APG-77.


Huh, fair enough. I wasn't aware the F-35's ESM was that good or had achieved that success; I was under the impression that while the Barracuda was highly capable, it wasn't that much more sensitive than older systems.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 21:24
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The Barracuda is to older systems what the APG-81 is to older systems, as the APG-81 is part of the Barracuda as well.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 01:29
by zero-one
Question, wouldn't the APG-77 also be able to Jam the APG-81? I remember reading here that the 77 is so powerful that in can actually be used to burn electronic equipment from a specific range. Is that even possible.

Regarding the Typhoon being on the same level as the Raptor. The Brits were really pushing the narrative that the Tiffy and F-22 were on the same level.

Typhoon pilot claimed that they simply chose a different approach (super agility instead of stealth) to face future combat needs.
This graph perfectly illustrates how similar and in some cases superior/practical the Typhoon is compared to the Raptor. At least thats the narrative they wanted

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 04:42
by firebase99
zero-one wrote:Question, wouldn't the APG-77 also be able to Jam the APG-81? I remember reading here that the 77 is so powerful that in can actually be used to burn electronic equipment from a specific range. Is that even possible.

Regarding the Typhoon being on the same level as the Raptor. The Brits were really pushing the narrative that the Tiffy and F-22 were on the same level.

Typhoon pilot claimed that they simply chose a different approach (super agility instead of stealth) to face future combat needs.
This graph perfectly illustrates how similar and in some cases superior/practical the Typhoon is compared to the Raptor. At least thats the narrative they wanted


Talk about cherry picking, wow. "Wings. Both have 'em. Engines? Both have 2, check. Vertical stabilizer? Roger, Tiffy has one, makes more stealthy than having two. Copy that."

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 08:07
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
I'd say F-35 has some key advantages also when compared to F-22.


I'm not going to disagree with you there. But I have a few opinions about it.

1. Numbers and availability : The assigned mission will still dictate who does what. If all the F-22s and all the F-35s will be focused on air superiority then you're absolutely right. The overwhelming number of F-35s will give them an advantage. But just like in the gulf war were a smaller number of F-15s were tasked with CAP and the more numerous F-16s were tasked with strike missions resulting in F-15s getting most ot the kills, the F-22s and most ot the F-35s will also fall into simillar roles.

2. Networking. The impressive networking capabilities of the F-35 will not benefit other F-35s exclusively though. That info will be shared with F-22s who I think will be tasked with actually engaging enemy aircraft.

3. SA. : the thing about SA is, I think both planes have more than enough SA to engage a bandit. imagine a scenario where a Su-30 is detected by both planes. They both know its a Flanker, they both know its hostile, they both have all the relevant data they need to engage. But the F-35 knows its carrying 2 R-27s, 4 R-74s and 2 R-77, it also knows that The GIB is eating a sandwich.

Point is, yes the F-35 knows more, but most of it is icing on the cake in A-A. I still think that for an A-A mission there is nothing that the Apg-77/ALR-94 combo can't provide for the F-22 to give it's pilot all the SA he needs.

But I am not trying to contradict your points, they are valid for me.


1. In the Desert Storm there were about half as many F-15C/Ds as there were F-16s. The difference between numerical ratio of F-15/F-16 and F-22/F-35 is pretty much huge. Total ratio of F-15/F-16 ever produced is about 1:4. For F-22/F-35 it will be at least 1:20 and even for USAF, it will be at least 1:10. So it's a lot more possible (or even necessary) to task F-35s for air-to-air than F-16 ever was. One big difference is also that 5th gen fighters (F-35 especially) are a lot more capable of doing things like guiding weapons for other platforms or engaging enemy aircraft even when doing air-to-ground mission. They do things simultaneously whereas 4th gen fighters have to switch modes manually. So we may see situation where air-to-ground tasked F-35 guides an AIM-120 fired by another F-35, F-22 or even Aegis ship. So who does the killing then, that's an interesting question? I think this is one of the major differences between 4th and 5th gen fighters.

2. Currently there is pretty huge difference between data exchange between F-35s using MADL and F-35 to F-22 (or any other platform) using Link 16. I'm sure at some point they will use common data links or that can be handled with those proposed communications gateways. Of course those gateway platforms would be vulnerable to enemy attacks and direct communications would be preferred. I do agree that F-35 and F-22 can work very synergistically even with Link 16.

3. SA against Flankers or other 4th gen fighters is not a problem for either as Flanker has huge RCS and easily recognizable RF transmissions. F-22 would even have the edge there due to having more powerful radar system. Of course both will detect, track and ID Su-30 very, very far away. There will be difference in situations like detecting J-20, cruise missiles or other potentially very low RCS targets. F-35 will also have superior SA against ballistic or anti-aircraft missiles due to having much more advanced distributed aperture system (which naturally could be upgraded in F-22 at some point).

I do think that comparing F-35 and F-22 is pretty pointless though. F-22 will be the main air-to-air machine in USAF even if F-35 was equally capable. I do think that F-35s will be used for air-to-air combat at some point and they will fare extremely well. Together they will be overwhelming force, even more so than F-15/F-16 combo.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 08:23
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:Question, wouldn't the APG-77 also be able to Jam the APG-81? I remember reading here that the 77 is so powerful that in can actually be used to burn electronic equipment from a specific range. Is that even possible.


Yes, depending on range and protection level of said electronic equipment. I doubt it can be done against military grade electronics at any really useful range though. The radiation power per unit of area will very quickly go down with range. The radiation power one kilometer away will be less than 1/1000 of the radiated power measured directly from radar antenna.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 18:18
by mixelflick
firebase99 wrote:
zero-one wrote:Question, wouldn't the APG-77 also be able to Jam the APG-81? I remember reading here that the 77 is so powerful that in can actually be used to burn electronic equipment from a specific range. Is that even possible.

Regarding the Typhoon being on the same level as the Raptor. The Brits were really pushing the narrative that the Tiffy and F-22 were on the same level.

Typhoon pilot claimed that they simply chose a different approach (super agility instead of stealth) to face future combat needs.
This graph perfectly illustrates how similar and in some cases superior/practical the Typhoon is compared to the Raptor. At least thats the narrative they wanted


Talk about cherry picking, wow. "Wings. Both have 'em. Engines? Both have 2, check. Vertical stabilizer? Roger, Tiffy has one, makes more stealthy than having two. Copy that."


This had me in stitches :)

But yes, that was my thought too when reading the schematic. For a Typhoon pilot who may have scored a kill vs. a Raptor in WVR combat, I'm sure that was his lasting memory of their duel. Almost makes you forget you got blasted out of the sky by AMRAAM's before the merge...

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 19:41
by marsavian
Question, wouldn't the APG-77 also be able to Jam the APG-81?


Yes, but that doesn't solve the IRST deficit. The F-35 is the one aircraft in the world the F-22 would have a serious problem with at BVR. Sure if it got to the merge successfully then it would be the favorite but it would have to get there first in one piece. Which is why a minimum DAS MLU update for the F-22 Raptor is pretty essential to keep its talons sharp against Su-57/J-20/J-31.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 19:54
by wrightwing
The current MLU for the F-22 includes new sensors. No specifics have been mentioned, but it's already got radar and ESM covered, which doesn't leave a whole lot of guessing, as to what sort of sensors they are.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 21:14
by knowan
wrightwing wrote:The current MLU for the F-22 includes new sensors. No specifics have been mentioned, but it's already got radar and ESM covered, which doesn't leave a whole lot of guessing, as to what sort of sensors they are.


Did the F-22 design leave room for an IRST system as a possible future upgrade?

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 22:10
by wrightwing
knowan wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The current MLU for the F-22 includes new sensors. No specifics have been mentioned, but it's already got radar and ESM covered, which doesn't leave a whole lot of guessing, as to what sort of sensors they are.


Did the F-22 design leave room for an IRST system as a possible future upgrade?

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/10/1 ... rnization/

"In 2024, funding kicks in for sensor enhancements, a project that is expected to run for several years.

"What we’re looking for is a sensor to complement the radar that’s on the jet,” Merchant said.

There isn’t much detail available yet about upgrades that are still six years away, but he stressed that it goes back to the Raptor’s mantra of “first look, first shot, first kill.”

“I want to maintain that first-look capability and be able to get a shot off,” Merchant said. “So I need a target-quality track at extended ranges outside what my radar can do today.”

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 22:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
A return of the wing-root IRST? Not sure what the angular resolution you can get to get a track from two sides of one plane. Datalinking between two planes though...

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 22:22
by SpudmanWP
They should save money and use the AdvEOTS that will be in the F-35.

Re: 4th vs 5th gen differences

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2019, 15:20
by doge
@My mediocre opinion...(Posting secretly. 8) )
From a Radius or Range perspective, I would like to applaud the F-35's Maneuverability.
    -F-35A's currently revealed max radius is AA 760 nm. (LM pdfs Israel Profile.)
    -F-35A's Radius is larger than 2x fuel tank F-15C's mission twice times. (Video of Lt. Col. Scott CAP Gunn.)
    -F-35A's leg is longer than F-15E. (Video of Lt. Col. Christine Mau.)
    -F-35A's Range is similar as ‘maxed-out’ F-16 with every auxiliary fuel tank. (LM Steve Over at ILA 2018.)
In addition to having Maneuverability, this long Radius or Range is also coexistence, furthermore, I think that it's amazing that both stealth and sensor are also compatible or coexistence.
When configuring to achieve these radius or range profiles on other Fighter, how much will the Maneuverability etc performance degrade? 8)(Devil's question :devil: )