Page 3 of 76

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2011, 18:10
by flighthawk128
Thrust vectoring is important though. Go on youtube and watch a raptor take off and perform maneuovres. If you look carefully, you can see the exhaust moving and the 'nozzles' (Sorry, not sure what to call them, engine flaps???) are vectoring. This helps in STOL for the raptor, which also was a component requested by the air force. And for the F-35, it meets and exceeds almost all of the design requirements. That makes it pretty successful. Don't forget, the F-35 replaces about 5 planes with different functions, for 4 branches of the military (air force, army, navy, marines), and across multiple countries. That means it has to be a good, versatile, reliable design, and I think Lockheed did that with the F-35. The stealth may not be as good as the raptor's, nor the performance, but it also costs much less.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 06:32
by archeman
I believe that I have seen this bunch (Erik Palmer) posting similar claims in videos on YouTube. In those videos (which seem more like Sukhoi puff pieces) there is some additional information about the supposed ‘computer simulation’. They state in the vids that the simulation included the stipulation that the A2A combat all takes place within visual range. It seems to me that if you add enough chains to the F-35 strike aircraft vs. a high maneuverable aircraft like the SU-30 you probably would start losing F-35s pretty fast. But, war isn’t about fair and there is no reason to try and make it fair at the cost of your life. The F-35s would engage BVR and with parameters that allowed them to use their stealth advantages, tactics would dictate NOT closing to visual range.

I agree with the article that defense of supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refueling aircraft are a problem that the Air Force hasn’t solved, other than curt statements that they will control the sky.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2011, 23:13
by flighthawk128
I agree with the article that defense of supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refueling aircraft are a problem that the Air Force hasn’t solved, other than curt statements that they will control the sky.

Agreed. And welcome. However, if there are enough F-35's, that's a pretty good mobile defense, especially considering that they have VTOL capability. They'd just idle in the hills or forest and when radar detects inbound hostiles, they'll just pop up and shoot them down before they even get close enough to launch a missile against anything in the area.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 03:22
by keletho
I have 2 questions, and as u can see I'm a newb so maybe u won't go to hard on me and can keep the the big words to a minimuim. 1st is it to early to tell if the T-50 is superior to a F-35. And why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 03:55
by SpudmanWP
why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)

Cost. You can buy two F-35s for the price of one F-22. The F-22 also costs more to maintain over it's lifetime.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 04:00
by delvo
T-50 is more of an attempt to copy F-22 than to copy F-35; it's more similar in shape and size, and has two engines with thrust vectoring. That probably makes faster than F-35 and able to fly higher and turn a sharper corner, since those are true of F-22. By its size, it probably also carries enough fuel for longer range, and more missiles. But Russian planes have long lagged behind American in sensors, networking, pilot interfaces, and reliability/maintainability (which affects how much time they can spend flying). And the Russians' own statements about how stealthy it is make it less stealthy than F-35, which is the biggest issue.

The USA's reason for making the newer plane less stealthy than the one before it might have something to do with keeping costs down, but it's also been deemed safer to export. It is, however, still stealthier than the previous stealth planes (F-117 and B-2), which still haven't been tracked in flight.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 07:21
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:
why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)

Cost. You can buy two F-35s for the price of one F-22. The F-22 also costs more to maintain over it's lifetime.

F-22 = Sports Car
F-35 = SUV :D

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 07:34
by SpudmanWP
F-22 = Corvette (REALLY fast 2-seater)
F-35 = Mustang (fast 4-seater with a trunk)

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2011, 22:01
by thestealthfighterguy
popcorn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)

Cost. You can buy two F-35s for the price of one F-22. The F-22 also costs more to maintain over it's lifetime.

F-22 = Sports Car
F-35 = SUV :D


I was thinking...

F-22=Sports Car
F-35=Ford SVT Raptor "pickup" Still fast, but tuffer and can fit more that a golf bag in it.


TSFG

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2011, 03:22
by deadseal
Just relate it to the legacy comparison of f-15 vs f-16. F-15 was built ot have a giant radar and crush dudes from high altitude BVR. The f-16 (though not designed for this purpose) has filled in the role of self escort gbu-31/24/10 carriers. Think of the ratio in a package. You have OCA sweep(Raptors) and the bomb trucks(F-35's). As a mission commander you wouldn't want 50% of your forces to be OCA, what you really need is as many bombs as you can get to the targets safely. what are the five rings thing? The point of an airforce is not primarily Air superiority, but to attack the center of gravity. Now if your bomb truck just happens to be partially syealth and have an AESA, The force multiplier way outweighs the cost.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 02:28
by flighthawk128
It is, however, still stealthier than the previous stealth planes (F-117 and B-2),

Are you for real???
B-2 Spirit bomber is the stealthiest plane in the world.
If you fine tune it properly, it will have pretty much NO radar-cross section, not to mention that there is no infrared or heat emission, due to the materials, and the design.
It costs over a billion dollars for goodness's sake!
The only comparable aircraft in the world is the raptor, maybe...

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 02:43
by hcobb
Picture of B-2 "non existent" IR emissions: http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... _IR_lg.gif

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 02:45
by destroid
F-22 would cost a billion dollars too if they only made 20 of them.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 04:47
by wrightwing
keletho wrote: And why would they make a newer plane with less stelath capability than a older model (F-35 -new F-22 - old)


Because they have far less experience designing, and building stealthy aircraft. Not only do they have a lot of catching up to do in shaping/materials, but in manufacturing to the precise tolerances required.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2012, 04:51
by wrightwing
keletho wrote:wait so that means the US could bomb a country and nobody would know?
I'm pretty sure what ever country being bombed would know.