Jump to content

Recommended Posts

F-22A AESA radar has more T/R elements than F-35 radar (That means the F-22 "sees" the F-35 first in every encounter.)

I'll be the first to say the F-22 is the hands down best A2A machine in the world, bar nothing even in test (yes, counting the Pak-FA and J-20). It has a huge kinetic advantage, flies in low earth orbit, and has superior stealth. But the above statement is categorically and technically wrong.

As for the F-22 being an equal or better strike platform, that also simply is not true. First, the F-22 doesn't carry 2,000lb bombs internally, so it is at best a STOVL class payload. Second, the F-22 doesn't have the radar modes or integrated sensor suite the F-35 will have, so it will not have the ability to target or the SA the F-35 is developing.

Even with the oxygen issue, the F-22 kicks @$$. But it is an old school stealth maintenance hog, another area the F-35 is already demonstrating superiority.

So, both excel in certain areas, and mostly, as intended, complement each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the F-22 being an equal or better strike platform, that also simply is not true. First, the F-22 doesn't carry 2,000lb bombs internally, so it is at best a STOVL class payload.

It matches the beloved F-35B in payload, ergo, it must be rated as "awesome" in this category.

Personally, I think it all depends on what the mission is. If you are looking for a platform to fly into the an extremely heavily protected area and conduct a first night type strike against a fixed SAM site or Command & Control facility, it sounds like the F-22 would be the preferred aircraft. If nothing else than due to it's better stealth and superior performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It matches the beloved F-35B in payload, ergo, it must be rated as "awesome" in this category.

Personally, I think it all depends on what the mission is. If you are looking for a platform to fly into the an extremely heavily protected area and conduct a first night type strike against a fixed SAM site or Command & Control facility, it sounds like the F-22 would be the preferred aircraft. If nothing else than due to it's better stealth and superior performance.

Superior performance in a strike mission means what? Yes, F-22 is stealthier and faster. But it simply does not have the ability to target ground sites like the F-35 would, because it has a vastly inferior radar for the strike mission. It also is not equipped with the same level of EW detection/protection the F-35, nor does it have an integrated/fused battlespace picture like the F-35 does. So aside from inferior performance in finding, fixing, targeting and survivability against those types of threats, how is the F-22 better?

Look, day one MiG/Flanker killing, no argument--F-22, that is its design point. But day one SAM site or other ground target? That is the F-35 design point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Superior performance in a strike mission means what? Yes, F-22 is stealthier and faster. But it simply does not have the ability to target ground sites like the F-35 would, because it has a vastly inferior radar for the strike mission. It also is not equipped with the same level of EW detection/protection the F-35, nor does it have an integrated/fused battlespace picture like the F-35 does. So aside from inferior performance in finding, fixing, targeting and survivability against those types of threats, how is the F-22 better?

Look, day one MiG/Flanker killing, no argument--F-22, that is its design point. But day one SAM site or other ground target? That is the F-35 design point.

MarkW, as usual, your description of the F-22 vs. F-35 design objectives is right to the point. But the execution of the program objective may be a different matter.

At the biginning, the F-22 was supposed to replace all the F-15C for the air superiority role. Then the maintanance issue came and the USAF changed course. The F-15C are to be equiped with an AESA radar for multibillion dollars and keep flying. The latest hypoxia problem of the F-22 makes the decision to keep the F-15C sound very sensible.

The F-35A is supposed to phase out the F-15E for the USAF and F-35C replace the legacy Hornte F-18C/D for the NAVAIR. The F-35C and Super Hornet are supposed to fly along side each other in the near future as currently planned. I will say that the reality is yet to be seen. As a tax payer, I sure hope that the F-35's work as well as it was promised and cost a lot less than originally projected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MarkW, as usual, your description of the F-22 vs. F-35 design objectives is right to the point.

Why thank you!

The F-35A is supposed to phase out the F-15E for the USAF

I am fairly sure this is not correct. I've never seen a chart showing the F-35 replacing the Strike Eagle--CONOPS would have the F-35 wiping out enemy air defenses, then the F-15Es doing the deep, heavy interdiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He said "A Fairly tough bird too" He didn't not say equally as tough or better so quit nitpicking on things you don't read right. 95 percent of aircraft aren't as armored as an A-10. Remember too that the F-35 flies faster with one engine than the hawg does with two. speed is armor too. So again its compromises. You don't need heavy armor to do CAS. If the F-35 couldn't do CAS the USMC wouldn't be interested. Dead simple.

Hmmm, "Speed is Armor"....where did I hear that before, oh yes, Jackie Fisher about his battle cruisers just before Jutland. How'd that work out for the HMS Queen Mary, HMS Indifatigable and HMS Princess Royal? (not to mention HMS Hood a few years later)

Just funning you, I'm a fan of the F-35. After all, the VTANG is scheduled to be the first unit to get them in the Air Guard. I think the EOTS and the datalink are what makes the F-35 system great. Every pilot will know what any pilot knows.

Edited by Grey Ghost 531
Link to post
Share on other sites

Superior performance in a strike mission means what? Yes, F-22 is stealthier and faster. But it simply does not have the ability to target ground sites like the F-35 would, because it has a vastly inferior radar for the strike mission. It also is not equipped with the same level of EW detection/protection the F-35, nor does it have an integrated/fused battlespace picture like the F-35 does. So aside from inferior performance in finding, fixing, targeting and survivability against those types of threats, how is the F-22 better?

Look, day one MiG/Flanker killing, no argument--F-22, that is its design point. But day one SAM site or other ground target? That is the F-35 design point.

But if you are going after a fixed site, with a known location, the targeting ability of the F-35 is not as crucial - correct? I would think that the target coordinates would be pre-loaded into the JDAM's and all the aircraft would have to do is get within launch parameters and the weapon will do the rest.

I'm not an expert on the subject like others on this thread but if that is the case, wouldn't the F-22's much superior kinematic performance (which equates to being able to release the weapon further away than a slower / lower platform) and superior stealth make it the preferred option for this specific scenario?

No question about the F-35 being a better pick for other missions, I was only referring to this one specific scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose after the F-35 sneaks in and precisely geo locates the SAM site using the SAR mapping mode, it could turn around, leave the battle space and broadcast over highly detectable LINK-16 to an awaiting F-22. The F-22 could then burn into the battle space, drop and run.

Do I need to go on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This maybe a bit of a dumb question, but is the USMC likely to get F-35Cs at some point to replace their bugs? Or will they just soldier on with superbugs until the next F-X program when ever that is or drop cat and trap ops all together?

Edited by rustywelder
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose after the F-35 sneaks in and precisely geo locates the SAM site using the SAR mapping mode, it could turn around, leave the battle space and broadcast over highly detectable LINK-16 to an awaiting F-22. The F-22 could then burn into the battle space, drop and run.

Do I need to go on?

Apparently yes because it appears that you didn't quite understand that scenario.

- Fixed site (Command & Control, early warning radar site or other static, high value, "first-night" type target)

- Location is already accurately known through other means (satellite imagery being one). I'm guessing that the US already has a pretty robust database with the exact coordinates of thousands of such targets from any potential adversary nation.

Based on the above, why would you need any other platform to "precisely geo locate it"? The exact coordinates are already known and are pre-programmed into a JDAM. This is a pretty common targeting mode for these weapons, not every bombing mission flown is against a mobile or pop-up target that must be precisely located by the aircraft before a weapon can be dropped on it.

This isn't a slag on the F-35, just a simple question on whether or not for a very specific type of mission, the F-22 might be a superior platform.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
This maybe a bit of a dumb question, but is the USMC likely to get F-35Cs at some point to replace their bugs? Or will they just soldier on with superbugs until the next F-X program when ever that is or drop cat and trap ops all together?

The Marines are already getting 80 F-35C models to cover their squadrons that deploy with Navy carrier air wings. The rest of the USMC fleet wil be comprised of 340 F-35Bs. The USMC originally just wanted 420 F-35Bs to replace the F/A-18 and AV-8B, but the Navy didn't want the B-models on the carriers because it would screw up the launch and recovery cycle. So the USMC is basically being forced to buy 80 C-models.

I suppose after the F-35 sneaks in and precisely geo locates the SAM site using the SAR mapping mode, it could turn around, leave the battle space and broadcast over highly detectable LINK-16 to an awaiting F-22. The F-22 could then burn into the battle space, drop and run.

Mark, as you may or may not be aware, Elmendorf has already got a bunch of Increment 3.1 equipped Raptors that are upgraded with SAR radar mapping and Small Diameter Bomb capability (also electronic attack). Additionally, I don't think the Raptor guys would agree that the F-22 doesn't have a fused view of the battlespace--that integrated avionics suite is one of their selling points. However, you're quite correct when you say the Raptor doesn't have anywhere near the sensors and computer power of the F-35 or data-links that can talk to other (non-F-22) jets...

Edited by Rapier01
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark, as you may or may not be aware, Elmendorf has already got a bunch of Increment 3.1 equipped Raptors that are upgraded with SAR radar mapping and Small Diameter Bomb capability (also electronic attack). Additionally, I don't think the Raptor guys would agree that the F-22 doesn't have a fused view of the battlespace--that integrated avionics suite is one of their selling points. However, you're quite correct when you say the Raptor doesn't have anywhere near the sensors and computer power of the F-35 or data-links that can talk to other (non-F-22) jets...

Considering truly fused views of the battle space don't really exist on a tactical platform (unless you are talking a lower level of fusion), and won't until LM gets a good handle on the Block 2 software, I'm not sure we are using the word "fused" the same way. The F-22 is still a federated system, not an integrated system in the sense F-35 is. Most importantly for taking on heavily defended targets, the F-35 has a superior self protection suite in terms of EW and early warning.

To 11bee's point that we have some vast library of "dial-a-bomb" data, yes, there is some of that you could use for JDAM levels of precision. Heck, those are the guys you pop with cruise missiles. But you ain't dropping a JDAM down a vent shaft slightly larger than the bomb body, they simply aren't that accurate. You need to put a laser dot on target, which rules out anything but an F-35. And our enemies are pretty aware they better be on the move the second before hostiles start, which pretty much rules out the fixed target set. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of targets to hit with cruise missiles and JDAMs, but generally night one of a conflict you are going after the hard to hit crap that requires real time targeting and absolute precision.

Further, how many A2A missiles can an F-22 carry in bomber mode? Until they work out how to fire an AIM-9X without hanging it in the wind for a long time, they have either one or none (yes, they carry AIM-9M, but c'mon now...). I think everyone would be happier with F-22s loaded to the gills with missiles rather than a smaller bomb load and little/no self defense BBs.

As for data links, the F-22 is just as capable of receiving offboard tracks as the F-35, it just can't broadcast them to anything but other F-22s, so that isn't really a limiting factor for either platform in a strike role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to be neutral here: wouldn't the F-22 best be used loaded for A2A to cover the F-35s in case the PAK-FA really is as good as non-Anglophones say, or just in the general case that the enemy actually is willing to send their fighters up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering truly fused views of the battle space don't really exist on a tactical platform (unless you are talking a lower level of fusion), and won't until LM gets a good handle on the Block 2 software, I'm not sure we are using the word "fused" the same way. The F-22 is still a federated system, not an integrated system in the sense F-35 is. Most importantly for taking on heavily defended targets, the F-35 has a superior self protection suite in terms of EW and early warning.

The terminology may be getting us screwed up here... But the F-22 is designed to display to the pilot a fused, corolated picture of what's going on 360 degrees around the jet. I've seen the sim myself and talked to dozens of Raptor pilots and program guys about this for years. That's the radar and ALR-94 plus whatever it recieves via the Link-16 and IFDL and what not... Bottomline, the jet fuses that data and displays it to the guy in the cockpit so that he can make the tactical decisions he needs to--it's actually quite similar to the F-35's displays in many respects (which I've seen the unclass version of- not the hardware, but the way the info is displayed). It's not the pilot's brain that's integrating data from a myraid different sources--it's the jet. It's not to the same degree as you'll see in the F-35, but it is sensor fusion.

At the processing level, the F-22 is most definitely not federated. If anything, it's too integrated since everything is processed in the jet's CIPs, which has cause the Raptor to be a living nightmare to do even the most basic upgrades on. It's gotten to the point where the USAF is trying graft on a open architecture system to the jet because they're tired of dealing with it.

If you have access- go talk to the F-22 SPO guys at Wright-Patt or go talk to Doug Ebersole at the F-35 JPO-- he used to run all the engineering at F-22 SPO so he can give you a much better understanding of the Raptor avionics and the problems with it.

I wrote this back at Defense News- it's still ongoing now: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110530/DEFFEAT04/105300306/F-22-Getting-New-Brain

Some more in this later article at Flight: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-usaf-receives-last-f-22-raptor-371401/

Personally, I always thought they shouldn't have bothered with adding air-to-ground capability to the Raptor past the JDAMs. It would have been far better to get the AIM-9X, AIM-102D and some from of helmet mounted cueing onto the jet earlier and just focus on air superiority. At least they're getting the missiles sooner rather than later now and they seem to be focusing more on the air-to-air mission now that we're pivoting toward the Pacific.

Edited by Rapier01
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article about some concerns regarding the ability of the Superhornet to go up against modern air-defense systems. Maybe it should be read by those that suggest eliminating the F-35 in lieu of more F-18's.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-super-hornet-faces-emerging-anti-access-challenges-372393/

Made my day thanks John :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that we're supposed to swallow the spoonful of sugar the F-35 Managers feed us yet disregard what the F-18 Managers feed ... :coolio:

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that we're supposed to swallow the spoonful of sugar the F-35 Managers feed us yet disregard what the F-18 Managers feed ... :coolio:

-Gregg

The FlightGlobal article is really a very balanced article on the current USN NAVAIR planning:

Current USN plans call for the F/A-18E/F to remain in service well into the 2030s before they are eventually replaced by an F/A-XX. The FA-XX, should it become a reality, is expected to be stealthy, have increased kinematic performance and offer significantly longer range compared to existing naval aircraft.

Meanwhile, later this decade, the stealthy Lockheed Martin F-35C will join the Super Hornet on the carrier deck, but the older aircraft will dominate the air wing for the foreseeable future. Even so,
the F-35C probably does not have the kind of range the USN really needs
.

With the US strategic shift towards the Pacific theatre, the problem of conducting operations inside A2AD environments has become a much more pertinent topic within the halls of the Pentagon.

When asked about plans for the future of naval aviation operating inside those environments, the USN leadership declined to comment. But in a separate interview about the service's plans for the Super Hornet fleet, Captain Frank Morley, the USN's programme manager for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Growler, says that the Super Hornet can and will play a role fighting in emerging A2AD environments.

The Super Hornet is designed for "balanced survivability," Morley says.

It will use a combination of signature management, stand-off weapons, counter-measures and jamming support from its EA-18G sibling to survive in heavily defended areas.

Morley says that the USN will not rely on any one weapon to fight in those complex environments but rather it will bring a host of capabilities to bear to defeat those threats.

"It an environment that the US Navy has to deal with," Morely says.

If the F-35C delivers on its promises, it will be a more capable platform for the USN. But

  1. It will not enter into full service until the end of this decade. For the meantime, USN needs to field 11 Super Carriers.
  2. It is already known that the F-35C will be more expensive to acquire.
  3. It is not known yet how much more maintenance the F-35C requires.

At the end, it is all a balance of budget vs. capability. It will be foolish for the NAVAIR not to upgrade the Super Hornet until the F-35C proves itself. Besides, the F-35C is the replacement of the legacy Hornet, F/A-18A/B/C/D. The Super Hornet replacement will be the FA-XX Air Dominance fighter of the future, which may or may not become a reality. The current plan calls for a 1:1 ratio of the F-35C vs. Super Hornet toward 2030. There is still a fighter gap toward the end of this decade due to the F-35 program delay. If the F-35C catchs up in program schedule and exceed expectation in fleet performance, I will not be surprised to see the ratio tilted toward the F-35C favor. If not, the USN will have no choice but to buy more Super Hornet, a proven platform.

Jumping up and down for joy after reading the title without reading the article is a bit premature.

Edited by Kei Lau
Link to post
Share on other sites

I skipped on the Winslow Wheeler bit for two reasons:

1. Wheeler did not meet the 50% accurate threshold, putting him on par with APA for credibility.

2. He is named Winslow.

Edited by MarkW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...