A few years ago I got a chance to sit in the cockpit of a FA-18 C. One thing I noticed that it has a rear view mirror. Don't remember if it had "Objects in the Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are"
8 million lines of code control every onboard sensor and weapon system making the F-35 the most complex and software-dependent fighter jet in history. (Technically the F-35 is a strike fighter.) Given the complexity, It's loaded with bugs, but once these are resolved it's well ahead of anything China and Russia has to offer. While they (Russia and China) do have superior kinematic performance, ultimately they fall short on stealth, sensors and networking. In today's battespace these are better metrics. Regarding the F-22, many of it's capabilities are unpublished and I'm very confident in saying it is at the moment the most deadly fighter in the skies. The AIM-120C has a kill probability approaching 80 - 90%, generally meaning 5 out of 6 fired from an F-22 are probably going to find their way home, and while not invulnerable it is much harder to find giving it a distinct advantage at beyond visual range. On the night of September 23rd, 2014 over Syria, the F-22 finally bloodied it's talons. While the F-22 has a long way to go to match the F-15 in combat success, superior American pilot training, tactics and support platforms like the AWACS, make this the best air superiority fighter on planet Earth. Period.
Technically the F-35 is a wannabe strike fighter. I don't know why, but every time I see a F-35 it looks like a Brewster F2A Buffalo to me for some reason.
As I've wrote, Battleships are made for the battle line yet that only occupies a few hours in a 30-y carreer. Same thing for fighters; if it can't dogfight, it is no fighter. That's why there's billions spent to make them agile and manoeuvrable. If it was solely a matter of launching some missile without getting into combat ever, a bomber can do the job, and be better at it, with a sufficient payload and fly time - two things the "5th gens" doesn't have. Electronics and avionics can come and go, changing many times as techno development happens. The flight platform, however, remains the basis that has to accomodate these changes: It's got to be good enough to walk the mile. And even in these objectives, the F-22 and f-35 just can't pack up enough training for their pilots: A typical F-22 can offer no more than 15 flight hours a month, whereas a good pilot need 30-45 hours off flight per month.
These stealth, sensors and networking abilities are actually put into question, as they aren't delivered as of yet. Stealth, especially, is illusory. As soon as they pack some ordnance underwing (and they will), they are "stealthy" no more, if they ever were. Furthermore, the Chineses and the Russians (to a lesser degree) are developping tactics that aim to eliminate the AWACS first, effectively transforming the USAF's supposed strenght into a weakness. This guy here compared "stealth" fighters around the globe and this is his conclusion, that I think is interesting (I don't think he is the alpha and the omega about flight stuff, but at least he offers a solid basis for discussion): Overall PAK FA is the best and F-35 is the worst stealth fighter, where air superiority is concerned. Rating would go roughly T-50 > F-22 > J-20 > J-31 > F-35. T-50 and F-22 seem to be air superiority fighters and interceptors, though PAK FA shows greater focus towards air superiority than the F-22. J-20 is primarly a bomber/transport interceptor, while both J-31 and F-35 are primarily (if not solely) ground attack aircraft. F-35s air combat capabilities were intentionally limited in order to prevent it from replacing the F-22. Still, F-35s purpose is often misunderstood – it is not, and never was, an F-16 replacement. While the F-16 was the top dogfighter in the US air fleet, F-35 is optimized for strikes against fixed targets and deep incursions. This shows different Russian and Chinese approaches. While PAK FA (T-50) is optimized to shoot down US fighter aircraft (primarily F-22 and F-15), J-20 is more optimized for shooting down US AWACS, transport and tanker aircraft, thus neutralizing its relatively short-range fighters without having to engage them in combat at all. F-22 is a compromise between two roles. T-50 seems to be the only stealth fighter made with actually realistic approach to aerial combat, in particular focus on maneuverability, passive sensors and on-ground survivability and ability to operate without large air bases (which will get destroyed), while J-20 is meant to avoid aerial combat, though it should be capable of handling itself if it comes to that. (Emphasis was mine) From what I heard this initial mission wasn't nearly satisfying: All of a sudden they turned the diva into a ground-attack bomber, and even in this modest role it has been found wanting, for lack of precision and ordnance.
It probably won't. Because you'll probably never see a situation like Lebanon 1982 where the Syrians happily fly out some 80 Mig-23s and Mig-21s with poorly trained pilots just to see them get hosed by some of the best pilots in the world flying the best fighters in the world.
If you take a closer look at this, you will find out that F-117 was not detected by any radar, they, the crew made the cardinal mistake of overflying the same territory at the same altitude and same time every day which Serbs closely monitored .It was a lucky punch ...The rest is Serbian/ Russian propaganda.. No F-117 has ever been detected, located or locked on and shot at.. Remember the first Gulf war, Saddam's Bagdat was the most heavily defended airspace in the world !!!! how many F-111 was lost to enemy fire ???
Again using Picard578 as a source. He is a load of nonsense. I remember him claiming a F-16 can outturn and F-35. Which is disproven now with the Norweign pilot sources. Stealth fighters are here to stay. Get over it. If stealth fighters are scam....why are nations buying them? -Why is the United States....the most powerful nation on the planet purchasing fighters that are junk and can be easily defeated? Look at the history of US aerospace industry. It's a big success. The P-38, P-51, Sabre, F-4 Phantom, F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22 have all been good fighters. Corporate scams don't last long. The F-104 Starfighter was example of a corporate scam. The US only bought a few, and F-100 remained the dominant air-air fighter until the F-4 Phantom came. And this is when the United States lacked any sort of advanced fighter training like TOPGUN and Red Flag where fighters were tested against other fighters.(with the F-4 Phantom especially) The F-22 have defeated the F-15, F-16, and Super Hornet at Exercise Northern edge with over 200-0 kill ratios.....all that is a scam? -Why is China who have larger government oversight spending so much investing hacking the F-35 program? Why they realize, their radars which are inferior to American radar can see right through stealth? -Why is Russia making the PAK FA, why they do realize American radars which do have VHF and UHF techniques same as them , can see right through them? -Why is France and partner making the NeEuron when stealth is nothing more but an American fad? -The list goes on and on as more nations buy and test the F-35. The notion stealth bomber are practical than stealth fighter is totally ridiculous. Wait the F-22's performance in dogfighting is underwhelming? Uh no. All eggs in one basket. Just total nonsense. The F-22 is one of the best dogfighters in the world. Again how are you going to dogfight when you can't see the Raptor. He sneaks on your tail from BVR and guns you down without knowing. Keep in mind even with the F-4 Phantom....their opponent the MIG-21 usually didn't bother using guns to kill. The North Vietnamese top ace didn't even use his gun but relied on heat seeking missiles. Almost all MIG-21 kills on US planes were from missiles. The F-4's failure in Vietnam was mainly due to training not the lack of guns. Beyond Visual Range was rare, since the US fighters cannot ID their targets so most F-4s dogfighted their enemy with missiles instead. The US BVR game didn't really start till the Gulf War and Kosovo. Using Kosovo has an example of stealth dislike is horrible example -The F-117 flew the same routes making it easy to spot with a good pair of binoculars -The F-117 lacked radar or any RWR, to detect threats -The F-117 flew less than 10 miles from the SAM battery, any idiot with good optical sensors, can see that, radar or not. A good estimate will get a good missile lock. The Serbians claimed their P-18 radar(a VHF radar) was able to spot the F-117 at 60 km but didn't shoot under 10 miles...because VHF and low frequency radar cannot lock on targets and shoot. Even the Russian S-400 does not use "anti-stealth' radars to shoot at targets.
I remember when the USAF revealed the F-117 after years of flying but were classified and in less than a year after being revealed it was either a Canadian or British low frequency radar that had no problem detecting and tracking a F-117 in flight. No aircraft in invisible to radar except one, that was during WW ll. It was the aircraft that Superwoman flew. They say the B-1 bomber when flying towards a radar shows up as a small fighter or even as a Cessna 172. Mushroom is an "oozlefinch" and is in the A/A business so he's usually the expert on A/A and radars, it's his expertise.
The poll and original post clearly state multirole, so unless its changed pure fighters probably are not up there. "Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen announced on Thursday that Denmark has settled on the F-35A Lighting II in the culmination of a years-long process to replace the nation’s fleet of fighter jets."
And yet, the only sorties the F-22 have at this point were ground-bombing missions. They tried to push the f-35 lemon on Canada, too. The decision of buying fighters is in no way connected to the fighters' performance, but rather to political and lobbying reasons. If actual factors like performence, operationnability and costs really mattered, there would be much more Rafales and Gripens sold around the world.
Kosovo was one of President Clinton's "half-assed" wars. Had the Untied States and coalition gone in with the same vigor and commitment to wage total war as they did during the Gulf War, the incident involving the F-117 getting shot down by Serbian air defenses would likely never have happened. In the Gulf War, the electronic battleground was a key element of the air campaign. The systems employed included the EC/RC-135 Rivet Joint, the TR-1 (U-2), the US Navy's EP-3 and EKA-3B aircraft and the RAF's Nimrod R.1. These aircraft were strategically positioned to cover particular sectors of the IADS - Iraqi Air Defense System coverage. A particular mission assigned to a USAF C-21A, (basically a Lear jet) preceding hostilities, involved feigned penetrations of Iraqi airspace. This is one of the most basic tactics involved with electronic warfare and the Iraqis fell for it repeatedly by lighting up their radars to engage the would be inbounds, in doing so they provided the monitoring ELINT platforms with their positions and the identities of their radars, in turn betraying the composition of their batteries. The Serbians were smart, no doubt. They studied the F-117 returning flight paths, which rarely waivered, and knew about where they would be to then limit the amount of time they needed to turn on the radars of their SAMs thus giving away their position. So a combination of complacency and the full commitment of available electronic warfare assets led to the inevitable downing of what could be regarded as a first generation low observable aircraft aka "stealth." You'll notice not a single F-117 was shot down in the Gulf War despite an advanced Iraqi air defense system, primarily because of the dedicated commitment to all spectrums of waging war including electronic.
Cool, pointing out his faults is part of the game (and can be done upon everybody). That being said he still proposes a solid discussion basis. China and Russia's planned use of stealth flight is different from the US, which aims to replace all of its fighter force with "5th gen" stuff. Russia and China want to keep a "4th gen" fighter force, but use 5th ones for specific roles, like striking at AWACS or other, deep incursion stuff - that I still think would be better served by a bomber platform, mind you. Yes - it is underwhelming. The time a F-22 can spend in the air, its reduced amount of ordnance and the comfortable ressources it needs to be operational make it potentially underwhelming in a dogfight, especially on the return trip. Oh, in ideal conditions and full of avgas, it's quite a capable dogfighter, able to equal to the best 4th ones, but in practice things are not looking so well. And clearly, the US air forces' ideal form of AWACS-dominated, BVR combat would be good if they weren't suggesting it for the whole force. By doing so, yes, I do think you guys are putting all of your eggs in the same basket. What if that AWACS get shot down? What if there are no bases to deploy your Raptors? There are WWII radars that can detect "stealth" planes.
Both the F-22 and F-35 have ECM capabilities..in other words they can jam radars independent of other electronic warfare assets. Typically AWACS are deployed far from any sort of combat area, an unidentified aircraft would be detected long before they would be able to engage them. The F-22 is capable of super-cruise meaning sustained super-sonic flight...they have the capability to defend vulnerable air assets before they would be a viable threat.
Why bomber? What is your anti-stealth fighter, pro-stealth bomber fetish? US is keeping F-15 mind you. Again 244-0 kill ratio. Underwhelming. Not to mention even in dogfights, it is the one to likely initiate the dogfight first. The F-22 armament is no more less than a Typhoon and Rafale. US air combat is not AWACs dominated. As said newer AESA radar on fighters serves as "Mini-AWACs." How is it any different if there are no bases for Raptors and no bases for any airplane at all? Again any low frequency radar will show VLO target as higher signature. A unstealthy target will always be detected even farther.
The whole F-35 "lobbying" stuff is nothing more than what other Coprorations do. Lockheed does't own the US government nor is it a monopoly, and frequently looses to Northrop Grumman. The US doesn't want one corporation(Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop) to be the key supplier. The F-35 being "slow and delayed" is mainly due to software problems. And keep in mind it's development rate of it being "slow" is not much slower than the F-22, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen. Whether a nation buys the F-35 or not, it has to deal with politics. For example the F-15 beat the Rafale despite the Rafale being more effective in tests in South Korea....because the US uses the F-15. We have a enterchanagbliblity, training, familiarity factor that comes in play. Plus industrial benefits(such as bringing jobs). Cost is another factor such as long term sustained costs. I think the F-35 is a better fighter than any 4th Gen mind you.
I already wrote why: It the goal is BVR, and dogfighting is out of the equation, might as well go for something that can accomodate more sensors and more ordnance, with a longer range. An interceptor must emit in some way to do its job; What good is a stealth interceptor, anyway? I thought they were being replaced by the Raptors. But then again they get the job done at a fraction of a F-22's cost, so I guess that's the right decision. Regular armement is (althought Rafale has a better gun), but as soon as the Raptor goes full load it is no longer a "stealth" plane. It also have this door opening thingie for the payload as well as for the guns, it seems, costing a fraction of a second and scrapping its "stealth" aspect the whole time it is open. Also, the Raptor's tiny bays can't accomodate Meteors. With much limited range. The Rafale can be deployed from carriers. The Russian birds can usually do with dirt tracks. Th last part is true. I am much more ready to admit that... but I can't deny lobbying power neither - it would be foolish. What about flight time? The best asset of a fighter is its pilot: Good pilots in mediocre fighters will beat mediocre pilots in good fighters. To get good with a plane, one's got to spend time flying it. The Rafale can give its pilots 80 hours of flight in a month - enough to train two pilots. The Raptor and the F-35 offers 15 hours of flight a month, so assuming a minimum of 40 hours per month for adequate training, its going to take three "5th gen" fighters to effectively train one pilot.
Simulations offer a lot now then they ever did, being networked with each other etc the only thing missing is the accelerations and probably the other environmental aspects... though I doubt they model weather anywhere near the real thing. They can do less hours in the real thing because they can do so much more now in the sim.
Bomber size targets are poor accelerators. That means any fighter jet can quickly reach Mach 2 and throw throw their BVR missiles at a longer range. Also since fighters turn so hard, if they can quickly do turns and evasive maneuvers against the enemy missiles. Notice how no bomber carries air-air missiles, even for self defense? That is because a fighter escort is simply more practical. A fighter's engagement distance will always be superior. Fighters have to emit what? If the fighter is armed with passive sensors, there is no emission. Also what if only one fighter turns on it's radar and guide others? Also emission=/=your enemy will spot it. The F-15C and F-15E will still remain in service through the 2020s. Again, if a stealth fighter is inherently a waste of money...why the PAK FA? When you can do it with a much cheaper fighter? An Fighter armed with AESA is far more effective than a AWACs and a unstealthy fighter. Limited range? Pretty much all fighters need tankers to give bomber-like range. Only Naval variants of the Rafale can take off from carriers. There is no naval variant for the F-22. Huh? The internal stealth load of the Raptor is the same if not larger than the Rafale. The standard air-air payload of the Rafale is 6 MICA(which can be changed with Meteor), 3 Tanks(I suppose 2 more MICA can be added) The standard air-air payload of the F-22 is 6 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders.(all internal so no compromise of stealth) 2 tanks Keep in mind even though the F-22 uses external fuel tanks, it's superior radar can spot targets before anything, and therefore drop them before they enter combat. The flight time problem can simply be solved by using training software and not adding the stealth coatings. Or simulators which are more and more realistic, because all fighters now are one big computer anyway. Where did you get the numbers? Again you can argue how much a P-51 Mustang is much more superior than F-86 Sabre in training and maintenance hours back in 1949. The superior technology is still there. Enough to progress in time for costs to be worthwhile and stomp the technologically inferior fighters.
Just remember, the French NEURON is a stealth lightweight strike aircraft(fighter size btw) with air-air fighter capablities. All this is a waste of money when they can just use a upgraded Rafale?
As a strike, air ground interdiction or as a CAS aircraft, not very impressive. The F-22 is a air superiority fighter and nothing else. A air superiority fighter and a pretend attack aircraft. Congress wanted the F-22 to be dual purpose to be able to drop bombs or no appropriations were coming. The A-4 Skyhawk which was the best jet powered attack aircraft for providing CAS during the Vietnam War was a light attack aircraft. It was able to carry twice the bomb load than the F-22. 4.5 tons of bombs. Usually it was 8 X 500 lb. Mk 82 bombs and occasionally 5 X 750 lb. Mk. 117 bombs. The Mk. 117 usually being the U.S. Air Force bomb of choice for battlefield interdiction and deep strike missions, Marines usually didn't use them, not a good bomb for CAS. Marine A-4's at times would carry 16 X 250 lb. Mk 81 bombs but the Mk 82 was the bomb of choice for CAS mission. As for the Marine Corps F-35 B, it will take two F-35 B's to accomplish what one A-4 can do in a CAS mission. I don't see the F-35 B being able to meet the close air support requirements for the Marine grunts on the ground. Like I keep saying, every time I see a F-35, I see a Brewster F-2 A Buffalo. I hope I'm wrong.
The F-35 can carry 6, 2000 lb JDAMs btw. Some on the wings of course, so no stealth. Either way IADs would wreck a non-stealthy plane, F-35 or not.
Video games huh? I guess anything goes. Anyway, there's not just training that benefit from flight time: By deploying two Rafales you've got 160 hours of flight per month, five times the number of airplanes that you'd have in the air with a pair of Raptors. If you intent to use these planes, that isn't a small argument. All of my numbers come from Defenseissues.
Again, numbers pulled out of nowhere. Which is not a source. Picard never gives hard data references to legitimate numbers.
Why the PAK FA? When did the Russians backed down from a muscle show? The Chineses' have more defined purposes for them, as a deep-behind-the-lines, fast strategic striker, aiming at AWACS and re-fueling transports. The Russians just want to duke it out. Anyway, a stealth fighter makes more sense when used like a stealth bomber that's trading range and payload for speed and defensive capabilities. I don't see the need for stealth in interception, going so far as even seeing it as a restricting hindrance. AESA has a shorter range than radar. In this sense an unstealthy fighter with its radar on will out-perfom a stealth interceptor using only passive sensors. Yes, but the "5th generation" fighters can't go full load without reverting to 4th gen. And both the Raptor and the Lightning will carry full loads quite often, to optimize their effectiveness given their low flight time ratios - at least when used by these countries who will buy them, if not you Yanks youselves. What the Raptors carried to make its ground strike in Syria wasn't nearly enough. Ah, but nEUROn isn't the same beast; it is an unmanned aircraft - real 5th generation fighters, like I wrote all over the thread. In any case it's just a study, like many such programs (including Boeing and Northrop's). Now they're something else entirely. They don't have a pilot so their capacity to take the Gs are like those of a missile. That's the Terminator right here and he's the future. [video=youtube;G9CcCdCcqI8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9CcCdCcqI8[/video]
