F-22 Raptor vs F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

airmarshal

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 13 May 2005, 08:08

Unread post29 May 2005, 07:06

F-22 Raptor

Role: air superiority fighter
Builder: Lockheed Martin / Boeing
Variants: YF-22A, F/A-22A
Operators: USAF

The F-22 Raptor is the world's first stealth air-to-air fighter. It is developed to replace the F-15C in the air superiority role. The F-22 is the first production aircraft with the ability to super cruise – flying at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners.

The plane's builder Lockheed Martin Corp., has built several F-22s for test purposes. Most are at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., undergoing a series of tests. Last year the pentagon approved production plans for an initial batch of 13 production aircraft.

Recently the designation for the Raptor was changed to F/A-22 to indicate the possible air-to-ground role of the aircraft. JDAM bombs can be carried in the internal weapon bay, while the optional external pylons offer a more flexible station for air-to-ground armament.

Specifications:
Powerplant: two Pratt & Whitney F119-P-100 turbofan each rated at 155.69 kN (35,000 lb st) with afterburning

Dimensions: length 18.92m (62 ft 1 in); height 5.00m (16 ft 5 in); wing span 13.56m (44ft 6 in)

Weights: empty more than 13.608 kg (30,000 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 26.308 kg (58,000 lb)

Performance: max level speed at optimum altitude Mach 1.58 in supercruise and at 30,000 ft (9145m) Mach 1.7 in afterburning mode; service ceiling more than 15,240m (50,000 ft); g limit +7.9

Armament: one 20mm M61A2 Vulcan six-barrel gun with 480 rounds; 2 AIM-9X Sidewinder IR-guided missiles in internal side bays. Up to 6 AIM-120C or 4 AIM-120A AMRAAM missiles in internal fuselage weapon bays or 2 AIM-120C AMRAAMs and 2 GBU-32 JDAM bombs or 2 GBU-30 JDAM bombs. Up to four fuel tanks and up to 8 missiles can be carried on optional external hardpoints. (Reportedly there are plans for a F/A-22C with larger weapon bays capable or carrying a larger selection of Air-to-Ground weapons and weapons such as the AGM-88 HARM).

-------------------------------------------

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Role: multi-role strike fighter
Builder: Lockheed Martin
Variants: F-35A, F-35B, F-35C
Operators: USAF, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Royal Navy/Royal Air Force (UK), (Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Israel, Australia)

The F-35 will be the result from the Joint Strike Fighter program. The aim of the program is to develop an affordable next generation stealth strike aircraft for the US Air Force, US Navy, US Marine Corps and the United Kingdom as well as other US allies. The program enables various forms of participation for the candidate export countries, ranging from 'informed partner' to 'major participant'. Boeing and Lockheed Martin were the two competitors in the Concept Development Phase (CDP). The Boeing Corp. designed and built the X-32 prototype and the Lockheed Martin team developed the X-35. The X-35 concept by Lockheed Martin was selected as the winner and the program has now entered the Systems Development Demonstration (SDD) phase of the JSF program.

Lockheed Martin leads a development team including Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Pratt & Whitney. Lockheed Martin brings in advanced technology experience, stealth technology and other technologies and experience which it has gained during F-22 research and development. Northrop Grumman offers tactical aircraft knowledge, stealth technology and carrier suitability. BAE System provides expertise and experience with short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) technology as well as advanced subcontract management. Pratt & Whitney is the builder of the engine which will power the JSF which is based on the F-119 turbojet from the F-22.
To forfill the demands of the main contractors three different variants are developed. All versions will have a common structure and have the same fuselage and internal weapons bay. They will all three be powered by a F-119 modified engine. All variants will carry the standard designation F-35.
The F-35A is the standard variant with conventional take off and landing developed for the US Air Force, the biggest JSF customer. The F-35A will replace the F-16 and the A-10 aircraft currently operated by the USAF. The F-35A will probably also be the most exported variant. Possible export countries for the F-35A include all current F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-4 Phantom, F/A-18 Hornet operators, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Greece, Israel, Australia, etcetera.

The F-35B is the STOVL variant of the JSF. The F-119 is modified using the experience of BAE Systems based on the Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine from the AV-8 Harrier. Unlike the Air Force variant the F-35B carries no internal gun and the air refuelling probe is located on the right side of the forward fuselage instead of receptacle on the top surface of the aircraft. The main customers for the F-35B will be the USMC to replace the F/A-18 Hornet ands the AV-8B Harrier IIs and the United Kingdom to replace the Royal Air Force/Royal Navy combined Harrier force of Sea Harriers and GR.7s. Other future customers can include Spain and Italy which also operate the Harrier.
The F-35C is a modified design which enables the JSF to operate from aircraft carriers using conventional carrier landings and capapult take off. The F-35C internal structure and landing gear have been strengthened to handle the loads associated with catapult launches and arrested carrier landings. It has a larger wing area than other JSF types with larger control surfaces for better low speed handling. Like the F-35B is has a refuelling probe instead of a receptacle. The US Navy will be the biggest customer of this variant. The F-35C will complement the US Navy fleet of F/A-18E/F fighters by replacing the F/A-18 A+ and C Hornet currently in service.
Future variants might include two seat trainers of each variant and possible modifications for export customers.

Specifications:
Powerplant: one Pratt & Whitney F119-611 turbofan probably producing between 34,000 and 40,000 lbs of thrust with afterburning

Dimensions: X-35A: length 50 ft 6 in (15.37m); height ; wing span 35 ft 0 in (10.65m) X-35C: larger wing span

Weights: unknown

Performance: max level speed unknown; service ceiling probably more than 15,240m (50,000 ft); g limit estimated at +9

Armament: one single-barrel Boeing Advanced 27mm cannon, primary AAM for defense is the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which at least two will be able to be carried in the internal weapon bay. The AIM-9X Sidewinder can only be carried on external additional hardpoints or on the wingtips, not in the internal weapons bay. A large variation of A-G weapons. Of which at least two JDAM GBU-31 (USAF, US Navy requirement) bombs or GBU-32 (USMC requirement) will be able to be carried in the internal weapons bay.
Offline

shocktroop

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 170
  • Joined: 22 May 2005, 12:25

Unread post29 May 2005, 11:21

The Raptor's main task is to get air superiority, while the JSF's main task is to attack ground targets, so probably in an air-to-air combat the Raptor will win.

Currently the only air-to-ground weapons that the Raptor is able to carry are JDAMs while the JSF can carry JDAMs and other types of air-to-ground weapons.

The F/A is supposed to show that the Raptor is a multirole fighter, but it's main task is to get air superiority. The F-15C can carry unguided air-to-ground weapons, but it's main task is air superiority.
The F-15E is a multirole fighter, but it doesn't have a F/A before it's name.
And since the JSF is supposed to replace the F/A-18E/F super hornet, than the JSF should be called F/A-35.

Both aircraft are stealth, which means that they will have a hard time detecting each other at long ranges.
Offline

Polaris

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2005, 01:03

Unread post29 May 2005, 13:01

From what I hear, the low observability on the F/A-22 is superior to that of the F-35, which was an intentional design feature in the F-35, as other nations will be recieving the F-35 as well, and we always want to have the option and capability of defeating the F-35 should it, God forbid, become necessary to. Also, the F-35C will NOT be replacing the F/A-18E/F. The F-35C was designed to complement, rather than supplement, the F/A-18E/F. I think the F-35C will be replacing the F/A-18C/D, not the Super Hornet variant.
Offline

TenguNoHi

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 920
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2004, 04:24

Unread post29 May 2005, 15:52

Yes, according to a video on LM's site, the F-35C will run routine strike missions over foreign soil under the cover of stealth. They will operate mainly in groups of 2 but as large as 4. Meanwhile an AWACs will operate somewhere in between the carreir and the target destination. 2 F-18E/Fs will guard the AWACs at all times. My guess is the rest of the F-18E/Fs will remain on carrier since carrier defense is the number one priority of the Navy. You dont have F-35's bombing crap without a place for them to land/reload/refuel... What sparks my interest is I've heard the F-18E/Fs A2A capabilities arent as good as the F-18C/Ds. So why make the E/Fs to fufill and air to ground roll then replace it with the JSF and throw the E/F into the A2A role its predecessor fufilled better?

Also, I too was under the impression that the F-35's A2A capabilities arent even competative with 4th generation a/c except the inclusion of stealth.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post29 May 2005, 16:36

While the flight performence of BVR AA capability of F/A-18E/F today is not impressive enough, the much larger internal space makes its potential for future-upgrading much greater than its predecessor. When the AN/APG-79 AESA radar, NG-EWS, NG-cockpit, up-rated F414 turbofan (26,000 ~ 27,000 Ib class theoretically), and AIM-120D / Meteor or AADRM have all been integrated into the F/A-18E/F, its BVR fighting capability will be much more better than F/A-18C/D and respectable enough.

Although the BVR capability this kind of "Super-Suprer" Hornet maybe still inferior than the top Air-superiority fighters in the world, such as F/A-22, PAK-FA, Su-35 UBM , Eurofighter tranch III (with AMSAR AESA radar + upgraded PIRATE IRST + upgraded DASS EWS + Meteor AAM + EJ-230 or EJ-270 engines with or without 2D or 3D TVC), Rafale F4 (with RBE2 AESA radar + Meteor AAM + M88-3 engines) and so on at that time, I think this is still the best choice of air-defense / interception for USN now since it decided to give up the plans of developing F-22N and /or ASF-14/Tomcat 21 + AIM-155 AAAM in 1990s. The F-35C should not be more suitable than F/A-18E/F for the mission of air-defense, since it may be even more heavier and less engine thrust (40,000~43,000 Ib (AB) / 25,500 Ib+ (Max. Mil.) * 1 versus 22,000 Ib (AB) / 14,000 Ib (Max. Mil.) * 2) than the F/A-18 E/F today.
Offline

Polaris

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2005, 01:03

Unread post29 May 2005, 17:51

I actually thought that BVR performance would be superior in the F/A-18E/F when compared to the F/A-18C/D, because of a much lower radar signature in the Super Hornet than in its predecessors. As for aircraft kinematics, I'd say the F-35 might do better, because, in a low-observability configuration, all of its stores are internal, eliminating external stores drag, while the Super Hornet, when fully loaded, has 11 hardpoints of drag to deal with.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post30 May 2005, 19:43

According to the data I know, F-35C will be able to carry about 8,901 kg fuel internally. With the striking configuration of AIM-120*2 + 2000 Ib bomb*2 in the internal weapon bays (Total weapon load: about 2,130 kg), this amount of internal fuel will bring the striking radius of 1,480 km-class to the F-35C.

By comparison, according to the Dassault's declaration, the combat radius of Rafale will be:

a. 1,100 km: Tanks * 3 with 4,300 L fuel + MICA AAM * 4 + 1,000 Ib bombs * 12 (Total fuel: 7,940 kg; Total weapon load: about 5,900 kg )

b. 1,830 km: 1150L CFTs * 2 + Tanks * 3 with 5,700 L fuel + SCALP-EG * 2 + MICA *2 (Total fuel: 10,900 kg; Total weapon load: about 3,050 kg )

c. 1,852 km: Tanks * 4 with 6,600 L fuel + MICA AAM*8 (Total fuel: 9,780 kg; Total weapon load: about 900 kg)

According to the data mentioned above, when both of the fighters (F-35C and Rafale) carry the roughly equal amount of fuel and weapon-load, it seems that their combat radii should also be roughly equal to, or even Rafale M maybe a little longer..............

And don't forget it, when the Rafale carries the roughly equal amount of fuel (8,901 kg) and weapon-load (2,130 kg) to F-35C, most of them have to be carried outsides and induce spectacular amount of additional drag. If the combat radius of Rafale can still be roughly equal to F-35C, which can carry everything insides, in this situation, I think the drag performance and the L/D ratio of F-35C's body might not be very impressive either...................
Offline

kilo111

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 30 May 2005, 16:16

Unread post30 May 2005, 20:03

Well both aircraft are very good planes, but I think espensive.

The F/A-22 is the best air to air aircraft, and now it also use air to ground bombs and some misiles. The F-35 is a cheaper multirole plataform. Then, both aircraft are such as F-15 and F-16. The USAF will operate less than 300 F-22 and more than 1.700 F-35.

But in Europe, F-35 es better than the F-22, because is a excelent fighter and is more cheaper than the F/A-22. However, Europe should consider Rafale and Eurofighter planes, that have an important systems. The Eurofighter Typhoon has less eco radar signal than the Super Hornet and in front, similar than F/A-22 (if this plane use weapons under wings). The Typhoon has 13 hardpoint, and can fire the meteor misile (like the AMRAAM but with more than 100 km range).
Offline

Capt-soap

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2005, 05:52

Unread post08 Nov 2005, 05:55

You never know, friendly countries today can in just 2 years become enemies. Like iran in 1978 to 1980. So the Raptor may face an F-35 in the future.

The usa needs to be careful who we sell them to. It's the only aircraft that has a good chance of beating a Raptor.
Offline

LordOfBunnies

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 05:28
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Unread post08 Nov 2005, 18:39

I'm just curious, will the F-35 and the F/A-22 do ACM/fight in air against each other (please correct my acronyms if they're wrong) once the F-35 is out? Will it do this once the first tester model is out? That would be wild, a race to see who picks up who first. :)
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3144
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post08 Nov 2005, 19:38

If the F-22 smokes the F-35, can we get it over with and cancel the GD thing ( JSF ) ? :lol:
- ELP -
Offline

LordOfBunnies

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 588
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 05:28
  • Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Unread post08 Nov 2005, 19:51

Elp, again, what do you propose in the slack time to develop a different fighter? What would be less expensive and better at this point? New line of eagles? Well how much does the F-15T cost, I know it's a lot and comparable to 2 JSFs (not including research which has already been done)? How much would a new line of F-16's with uber upgrades cost? Also a lot. Ok, another option is a new plane. Well, you have to do all the research on that new plane. There's a lot of money and time, well our air defense would be running down in that time. Even the Eagles may have to retire by then (so ooooooooooold, anyway). We can't produce more F/A-22's to fill the gap, they can fill the gap we need filled. There's the FB-22, that's on option but again, more R&D and more time than we have. Also, I'm thinking there would only be about 50% parts similarity (speculation) based on the shapes and what they have to do. There's MORE money. You run into the F/A-18 C/D and F/A-18 E/F problem again. Soooooooooooo, let's look at solutions. We can produce the F-35 or we can spend a lot of time we don't have making and developing something else. I don't mean this to be an attack just a look at what other options we have open.

BTW the only reason I posted anything about the radar pickup between the two jets is because I would think they'd be flying at different altitudes so that wonderfully low frontal RCS would be a little less wonderfully low.
Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3144
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post09 Nov 2005, 18:56

All of our air plans can be done in phases. Once I clear the table of enemy A2A threats and the large-long range SAMs in the first phase, I don't need a stealth jet. F-18 is in production. F-16 is in production. X-45/47, C-5 upgrades, tanker upgrades, FLYING HOURS !!!, C-130 sustainment, and a very long list of other boring things that run the USAF and allow it to be the killing force that it is, are suffering because of useless money pits like JSF at $245 billion, Iraq at 9$ billion a month, other useless programs like V-22 etc. WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to purchase things we don't need. Name it, we can clear the table of air threats and not use JSF. This aircraft is not needed. It is a jobs program/military industrial complex/political graft program at the end of the day, and does nothing but bleed resources better spent elsewhere. I haven't seen JSF anywhere on the list of needs from a combat commander, on the ground, in Iraq or Afcrapistan or flavor_of_the_week_useless_expeditionary_warfare_for_no_gain effort. I have no interest in what our allies need or want in an airframe. Its my GD tax money being bled away. Let them figure it out.
- ELP -
Offline

MKeldergod

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2007, 04:22

Unread post09 Mar 2007, 03:02

Well i think its obvious that the F-22 is an overall better aircraft. While the f-35 seems to be the better bomber then the f-22. A FB-22 is a new plan for a crazy fighter bomber version of the f-22.

Its obvious that the FB-22/F-22 combo is better than just the F-35 multi role fighter or the F-35/F-22 combo.

Now having said that i want to also add the F-22 is a big waste of money when the competion is not there. We dont need the Plan. Even Donald H. Rumsfeld felt this way > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462700/posts.
If anything this Plane shouldve been built in secret with one only being built and been kept in area 51 for the time we need it. This way the F-35 wouldve been or next gen plane. The F-35 is 2nd best only to the F-22. The -22 couldve been a secret fighter for emergencies.

ALSO

F-22 cost 120 million according to Wiki ( i feel its more )
F-35a costs roughly 45 million. Thats almost 3 F-35a for 1 f-22.

Also theres no STOVL for the F-22, and the F-35 is a better bomber.

So while the F-22 is the clear winner the F-35 is more cost effective.
Offline

MKeldergod

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2007, 04:22

Unread post09 Mar 2007, 03:21

Toan i dont think you see the potential of the F-35. When in service it will become the 2nd best fighter. As for you stating about other Jets that you think would be better heres what i think.

F-22 - Is to expensive for a threat thats not there.
EF - Still hasnt gotten its upgrades which wouldnt stop the F-35 anyway.
Raf- Same as above.
Pak-Fa - Probably wont see tomorrow. Even if it did it is said to be a competitor to the F-35 because of resources that are not there. By then it would be to late to sell the Pak-Fa.
SU-35 - This Plane looks to be out classed by the Western Fighters.
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests