Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The X-35 (two were built) first flew in October 2000 - after 1997.
You missed experimental vs desig.
Waste of time. What's your point Google phd? You have no aeronautics, no avionics, no a&p, no flight control, no Air Force experience. Yet you try, through wiki, to discredit, what I already disclaimed.
Again: transparent, political, and beyond all, comical. You've proven your aircraft knowledge. Leave this one. I'll get psi specific on jacks crews, hydraulic systems, and avionic software you can't find on google. Same with bpo cycles if you like. You'll lose.
The point is that the F-35 is newer, was not "chosen over" the F-22, and they fill different roles.
The F-22 is older by 10 years - even when accounting for prototypes.
The F-22 is the result of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program that awarded the contract to Lockheed in 1991. First flight 1997. In service 2005.
The F-35 is the result of the Joint Strike Fighter program that awarded the contract to Lockheed Martin in 2001. First flight in 2006. In service 2015.
The F-35 has many flaws. The question is whether these are just teething issues that it can overcome or if it is a money pit that will never succeed.
The point is that the F-35 is newer, was not "chosen over" the F-22, and they fill different roles.
The F-22 is older by 10 years - even when accounting for prototypes.
The F-22 is the result of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program that awarded the contract to Lockheed in 1991. First flight 1997. In service 2005.
The F-35 is the result of the Joint Strike Fighter program that awarded the contract to Lockheed Martin in 2001. First flight in 2006. In service 2015.
The F-35 has many flaws. The question is whether these are just teething issues that it can overcome or if it is a money pit that will never succeed.
Once again you are wrong.
The f22 was orinally designed as an air to air. Strategic vs tactical. F35 was billed as an all service. Great concept. Impractical reality.
The 22, while tagged higher in cost, actually comes in at budget with only minor tech issues. I can expand but all delivery systems encounter issues. The 35 was billed as a cheaper... Bs. It costs now, in privation, 1 million less than the 22. And it's capabilities pale.
The 35 was political. The 22 was brilliant. You're comparing a Porsche to a gti.
Avionics... Who does those? Again, not designated.
I'm short, don't weigh in when u read the New York Times or guardian. They have no clue.
Now, if you want to get into delivery, t to l ratios, maintenance, vectoring, hardwire adaptability, radar scope... I'll argue.
The 35, as a true JSF, was great in theory, but has been terrible in execution.
What a waste of money.
Also, we are still pouring money into technology that was needed 20-30 years ago. Modern wars aren't fought by manned aircraft and ground troops. They are fought in cyberspace and by UAVs.
A ratio of 1:6 isn't all that bad. Back in the day the Soviet air force needed something like 20 or 25 aircraft (as well as tanks and what not) to have one available at any given time. That's exactly how St. Ronnie was able to justify the military buildup during his reign. He scammed the country into believing that since the "Reds" had a third or more fighter aircrafts and such, they were more powerful, when in fact they could have had 10x more than us and STILL would have been behind in weapons at the ready.
File this thread under "It was wrong thinking in the 70's and it's still wrong in the 2000-whatever's"
(I'll will give you that the F-35 is a POS that never should have been built)
This wasn't a case of 1 aircraft serviceable while 5 are being maintained - I would not be impressed with that ratio, but it would be excusable. This was a case of 6 aircraft being declared ready - and then 5 of them had to stay on the ground when the scramble order came.
Quote:
(I'll will give you that the F-35 is a POS that never should have been built)
Swiss Army Knife thinking - one tool to do everything does nothing really well. Or, who knows - perhaps one of the variants will turn out to be useful, one can hope.
Somehow, though, it looks like the USAF always end up getting the most ROI out of their simpler aircraft. The B-52 was a slow-moving placeholder of a bomb truck supposed to fill the gap until supersonic bombers could come online. It's still flying, and the B-58 is not. The A-10 was conceived as an austere (that's the word actually used), expendable aircraft designed to blunt the advance of the 3rd Shock Army in the Fulda Gap. Never happened, thank God, but the things keep soldiering on. The F-16 was the poor man's simple, cheap F-15 - and the USAF hated it during development, because it kept infringing on the F-15's territory. And I'd argue that those 3 platforms, for all their simplicity, have provided amazing value for the taxpayer.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 05-02-2016 at 10:24 AM..
Yes but dispute Air Force protests, the 35 was selected over the 22, many speculate, primarily for political (ge engines) reasons.
As others pointed out this isn't true. The F-22 never competed against the F-35 the two programs were a decade apart. YF-22 was declared winner of the ATF program in 1991, well before the JSF program was initiated in 1993.
Some info on the history from "The selection of Lockheed Martin and Boeing for the concept demonstration phase was made in early 1997. McDonnell Douglas was eliminated and their team was dissolved. In the spring of 1997 Northrop Grumman joined the Lockheed Martin team and at the 1997 Paris Airshow, British Aerospace was added.
The Concept Definition Phase of the program saw the name changed to Joint Strike Fighter, with a mandate to develop flying demonstrators for possible production. Between the CDP contract award in 1996 and the first flights in 2000, literally thousands of meetings and technical reviews took place as the Boeing and Lockheed teams worked towards finalizing the designs for their X demonstrator aircraft and continued refining what would become their final program proposals."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
Again, f35 has been, and still is, an inferior aircraft and the original sticker price has now risen to rival the 22.
This isn't true either. F-22 costs more, and each are better at different things.
F-22's final procurement cost topped 180 million per plane, while F-35 is closer to 100 million with some estimates for F-35A to be 85 million per plane by 2019.
Btw, without googling, what's the customary delivery for air to ground, aka known as supremacy? Poundage or missile. Both are capable.
What engines do they utilize? I mean your post is so teansparent it's comical. Dual engine vs single? I'm not even getting into specs.
F22 was deployed first... Because the 35 couldn't solve simple thrust vectoring because its underpowered single engine.
F-22 can't do much for air to ground, right now just JDAMs of up to 1,000lb class internally. I think it can do SDB as well but no sure.
F-35 will be able to internally deploy JDAM and LGBs up to 2,000lb class, as well as JSOW, SDB/SDB-II. Brits are planning on also launching Brimstone from their F-35Bs, and it is likely Joint Strike Missile will be purchased by someone for maritime. Will likely have AARGM-ER on hardpoint.
Both are AMRAAM/AIM9 for AA, although I'm not clear if F-35 can mount AIM9 internally at first.
To take this further, F-22s advantages are obvious. Faster, higher, has a better radar (not necessarily more advanced, just bigger and in radars bigger counts), better all aspect stealth, true supercruise although F-35 is supposed to be able to manage a mach 1.2 dash for 150 miles, climb, turn rate, etc. Stealth is interesting though, General Hostage said F-35 is stealthier but I assume he was either talking about front-aspect or how it can better manage it's stealth electronically.
F-35 has a far better sensor suite with EOTS and EODAS, a weapons bay that can carry bigger ordnance, better networking and electronic attack capabilities. For ground attack the biggest gap besides payload is F-22 cannot by itself hit moving targets, it has no way to self-designate like F-35 can with EOTS so you need someone else in the loop.
Bottom line F-22 is a better air superiority fighter, F-35 is a better multirole fighter/bomber. I wouldn't to face either one in a BVR engagement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
