Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Bro...you are new here so it may take you some time to get used to AFBs humor...in the mean time, lighten up a bit.
It's fine. I wasn't offended or anything.
As to your post:
1) I seriously doubt that there will be any surprise within a year for the F-22. Even if the PAK-FA or the J-20 were introduced in some typoe of IOC in that time frame (which I do not believe they will be), hey will still not be a match for the F-22. For the J-20, until they goet a new engine with the desired capabilities, and lessen the IR signature back there...that will probably remain the same.
I was referring to more information becoming available about PAKFA. Two reasons for that. One would be the soon-to-be-signed FGFA contract, possibly a few months from today. And the second would be the definitive prototype version of the Stage 1 PAKFA, which may be out by the end of next year.
I don't know much about the J-20, so I cannot speak for or against it. I doubt anybody can, except by dismissing unproven Chinese capabilities.
Anyway, IOC and FOC of the PAKFA match the F-35, so I was referring to an F-22 equivalent being available at the same time as the F-35.
2) As to the F-35 besting a Raptor. It will be possible. The sensor fusion of the F-35 is actually better than the F-22 and it is difficult to transfer those capabilities over because of the differences in architecture. So, in a match up, with both armed with the latest missiles, the F-35 could detect and get the first shot off. I am not saying that will be an absolute ...because there are plenty of features the F-22 has to limit that possibility. I would expect, depdning on the ROEs, that the F-22 would beat an F-35...particularly if it is no holds barred.
What if there is the possibility of a jet which has equal or better kinematics compared to the F-22 and equal or better avionics compared to the F-35?
Anyhow...they are both 5th generation combat aircraft.
The F-22 was designed for Air Dominance. And overall, it will have no peer at that for some time to come.
The F-35 was designed for strike fighting. And it will excel at it and will, for a long time to come have no peer at it.
I beg to differ. The F-35 is not going to be a peer to the T-50 (or J-20, if the bays are as big as T-50's) when it comes to weapons loads, nor in terms of kinematics. Now, you can argue that the F-35 is a much better strike fighter due to its ability to get close to a target area. But is that enough?
If you are familiar with Hostage's comments, he says the F-35 is nowhere close to the F-22 when it comes to ground strike. And he also says the F-35 is more stealthy, whatever the reasons may be, probably has to do with other radar bands. So the only reason why 8 F-35s are needed to match 2 F-22s would be kinematics, since obviously superior avionics don't help as far as Hostage is concerned. To add to that neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are planned to carry cruise missiles as of today (with the exception of JSM, but USAF won't be using it, so we won't get to it). In fact, the F-22 carries lesser A2G munitions compared to the F-35. OTOH, the T-50 has as good or better kinematics compared to the F-22, while also carrying a larger assortment of weapons, including cruise missiles.
There are 14 new types of weapons being developed for PAKFA. And this is not counting the weapons being developed for FGFA in India and possibly even Israel.
So neither stealth, nor avionics reduce the number of F-35s needed for the same role that 2 F-22s can handle. The F-35's awesome ability to network also doesn't help reduce the numbers, hence why I had initially stated that numbers will play a big part in any F-35 led offensive. And when up against a F-22 equivalent aircraft, the F-35 has no choice but to beat it with numbers in the same role. So if the enemy shows up with 4 F-22s, NATO is going to have to bring 16 F-35s to match it, and so on... The only advantage for the F-35 would be a quicker turnaround and more sorties, while possibly being cheaper to operate.
As for the T-50 being an F-22 equivalent, you can argue that even if the F-22's kinematics are matched or exceeded by the T-50, stealth and avionics will play in the F-22's favor. But, this is again debatable because the T-50 isn't following the American formula of 90% shaping and 10% materials, it is the exact opposite. Shaping plays a smaller part in the T-50's stealth design and materials plays a more significant part.
More than 85% of the T-50's stealth comes from degrading the incident EM waves rather than simply deflecting them like in the case of the F-22. This way, the reflections from the T-50 are much lower from any direction while the F-22 would have a much greater emission of reflected signals in specific directions making it vulnerable to multistatic radars. While shaping contributes to 90% of the F-22's stealth (possibly), shaping contributes to only 15% of the T-50's stealth. The benefit of this technique is RCS can be reduced with the development of better and better materials, while the F-22 is more limited in that sense. So while they say that the F-22 or F-35s RCS will never change, the same may not be true for the T-50.
Now, if an aircraft that was designed particularly for strike is less capable than its air dominance cousin, how on earth will it match a rival that is designed to be as good or better than the air dominance cousin? And the only real way to prove this wrong would be to claim that Hostage was lying all along.
Wait until Brat hears of this.
