wrightwingAslo the notional F-35D does not need to need to completly match or exceed the F-22A, it just needs to be able to counter a Su-30MKI/35++ MB or F-15S/K in a one on one fight. (the Gates 75% doctrin)
The F-35A already does this.:cool:
wrightwingBTW, how do you propose to make ’em inoperable without physical destruction of either the base stations or their back-up power supplies?
For an indication of numbers: the UK has over 50000 base stations, two-thirds of them located on previously existing structures – e.g. hospitals, blocks of flats, office buildings, shops, churches . . .
– how many cell towers/concentrations do any prospective threat nations have? I suspect there aren’t any Western European nations that would be likely targets.
– there are non-kinetic means to disable cellular networks, and let’s just leave it at that.
wrightwingThats undeniable but.. take a look at the sheer numbers of cellphone towers.
The density of them would mean years of bombing by conventional weapons, do a search for cellphone towers on a maps website I think you may be surprised.
If your aircraft have to cross a minor road in remote areas to get to the target you can bet there’s mobile coverage, and what SEAD/DEAD ratio is acceptable for your strike package to go? how about 70% of cellphone towers within 10km of the strike packages route? that could be in the hundreds for one ‘real’ target.
I don’t think its as easy as some assume to pull down a mobile telecommunications grid thats usable by a celldar system, though i’ll admit it might be virtually impossible to place a call:D
and Bgnef said
ahhh.. but thats also true of the present Iraqi airforce. :diablo:
That’s why I said both kinetic and non-kinetic strikes. You don’t physically have to destroy each and every tower, to render them(or other electronic emissions) inoperable, during a given time period.
wrightwingThe correct question is, does the USA have the intel information at hand to do so.
A critical review does show, that the fire-power at hand has outpaced the intel capability by a wide margin. 😉
Nice deflection. The question is what other airpower has more intel capability or firepower available?
wrightwingSuch a claim is limited to the capability of a super power against a third world country and the UN will stay aside. At the moment the USA is incapable to deal with a second world country like the Iran. 😉
:rolleyes:
mmmkay.
What other nation has a superior capability in air power/combined arms/force projection?
wrightwingIt was my understanding that the source of transmission was immaterial for some of the celldar type radars, the jamming aircraft would actually help the radar picture with any transmissions.
And the fact that cell phone towers also have backup power (approx 24 hours) or small generators, like most tv/radio stations.
Thats quite a targetting list to compile and execute before the real fight begins.
You can bet that any first day of war scenario will involve the targetting of C4I, IADS, power grids, airbases, Cell towers, etc.., either through kinetic or non-kinetic means. As far as the targetting list- it’s the mobile targets that will prove challenging. You can compile target lists weeks/months/years out for fixed sites.
wrightwing1) Lighten the load – get the extraneous bits of air to ground kit off the airframe.
2) Rear quarter stealth… If possible make the airframe more stealthy from the rear quarter. A 2-D vectoring nozzle perhaps?
3) Bubble canopy – Find some way to raise the canopy to give the pilot the level of view from current F-15/F-16/F-18/F-22 platforms.
4) Larger radar. A larger nose would allow a larger AESA antenna to be installed, increasing first look-first shoot-first kill odds.
Remember the airframe is already planned to have significant air to air functionality out of the box and will provide it with significant capability. My contention however is that the compromises being made so that the plane can fulfill a myriad of roles in multiple air forces means that tradeoffs are taking place that impact it’s potential for stepping into the F-22’s role.
F-35 cannot provide what the F-22 can bring to the table. Whether the Air Force needs F-22 is another issue entirely.
The F-35 will always enjoy a first look first shoot first kill advantage over conventional airframes. The DAS was designed to compensate for the rearward visibility issue.
wrightwingWhat it does upside down?:)
It does this @ airshow demos, it is awesome, doing all sorts of rolls and aerobatics….. I am not sure if i have taken video but i have few photos of doing these sorts of things, @ Avalon Airshow;)
I hope the cargo is secured well before it attempts that maneuver.:D
wrightwingAccording to the air force the F-22 has a 1,850 mile ferry range with two external tanks. In this configuration the F-22 is carrying a total of 26,000 pounds of fuel. Without the tanks the F-22 carries 18,000 pounds internally. Obviously this is not going to be linear since removing the drop tanks removes drag but if you do the math then the F-22 has a range of around 1100 nautical miles or put another way a combat radius on internal fuel of over 550 nautical miles.
The old Lockheed Martin F-22 site
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html
Estimates the combat radius as 310 nautical miles + 100 nautical miles in super cruise for a total of 410 nautical miles. Surely 200 nautical miles of super cruise is significant.
Most of the spec sheets I’ve seen say 1,850+. The question is how much is that +.
wrightwingMy “guess” is the F-35 is about ~90% as capable as F-22 in Air Superiority Role. Yet, vastly more much capable as a Striker………
I think the F-35 will be very effective in the A/A role, but I don’t think it’s 9/10 of a Raptor, in that mission. That’s not to say that it doesn’t compare very well to everything else.
The Raptor’s speed/altitude advantage alone, gives its missiles greater kinematic effectiveness, as well as having a larger load out(and radar detection/tracking range.) Close in, the Raptor is better too.
My guess is that the F-35 is more in the 50-75% as good, range. Of course this remains to be seen.
wrightwingWhile the F-22’s APG-77 is larger than the F-35’s APG-81. That hadly makes in better. As least not over all…………last I heard many advance features of the APG-81 will be retro-fitted to the APG-77…………
Also. I personally doubt the Raptors ESM is better than the Lightnings either. I just read that many of its ESM components are going to fitted to advance Jammers and carried on such aircraft like the B-52, C-130, and A-10……………
As is, the APG-77 is a better A/A radar. It has a larger antenna, with more modules, and more power output. The APG-81 has advantages in A/G, though some of these additional modes can be incorporated into later model APG-77s.
The F-22’s ALR-94 is far more elaborate than any other ESM system on a fighter aircraft(one of the reasons why the IRST was dropped, and the side arrays postponed, were due to its capabilities).
The F-35’s MMI is superior.
wrightwingTyphoon ticks the box of 4 out of those (larger AtA load opposed to internal), eventually adding AESA then it ticks all five as the F-22.
The typhoon ticks the box for at least 4 of those.
Hmm, now which seems the most cost vs performance effective plane there 😀 Yes, the EF.
I’m not so sure about that analysis.:cool:
The Typhoon is faster, and probably more maneuverable, and perhaps less expensive. The F-35 on the other hand has better avionics(certainly A/G and probably A/A- we shall see how the Typhoon’s AESA measures up, whenever it enters service), and the flexibility to carry internal loads for stealth, or external ones for max firepower, depending on the mission requirement.
The F-35 is less reliant on stand off weapons and EW support, for survivability, which means the total footprint of aircraft needed to accomplish a mission is lower(which saves money, and risks fewer aviators).:D
wrightwingIt’s even better than ‘so much better’. Please, continue with your delusions, it’s better than today’s TV programm.
You’re right. The F-22 is on par at best with anything else flying or likely to fly.:rolleyes:
wrightwingI think the F-22 days are numbered, It is/was unaffordable, the role it plays is a niche role, yet it is apparently require in a strength of 381 by the people who would supposedly know its full capabilities and they also require ~2000 JSF’s in addition.
That’s because the F-22 was replacing F-15Cs, whereas the F-35 was replacing F-16, F-18, AV-8B, A-10, etc….which required far more airframes.
Now if the JSF is as good as some here are asserting (I assume the USAF knows what its buying in the JSF), they would have canceled the F-22 several years ago..
And If I read the posts here correctly the JSF is 99% or better than the Raptor capability at only 30% of the Raptor price.. or so people here would have you believe.
No one is saying that the F-35 is 99% of the F-22’s A/A capabilities. The point is that because the F-22 is so much better than everything else, that even if the F-35 is only 50% as good, that still makes it very formidable.
So who wants to be brave and say where the JSF is worse than the F-22, Situational awareness… no apparently its a generation ahead.
Price… its only a third or a quarter of the price
Performance.. its roughly parity because the test pilot says so.
stealth.. No its a generation ahead.
Supercruise.. no the USAF are hiding the JSF true capability’s with the jsf’s massive thrust and no externals it should compare well to the F-22.
IRST.. no the F-22 doesn’t have one.So there you have it – using the same logic previously used in this thread to prove the F-22 is a dog when compared to the JSF.
F-22 Strengths-
Better Radar
Better ESM
Better Raw performance(speed/maneuvering/operating altitude/etc…)
Larger internal AAM load
Larger volume of airspace that can be controlled
F-35 Strengths
Better A/G load
Better A/G avionics
DAS/EOTS
JHMCS/AIM-9X
Less expensive
wrightwingIt all really depends on what purpose you want to use the F-35 for.. the concept of over flying a double digit sam just to use cheaper bombs is franky ridiculous.
There are other ways to kill it, which would be safer, not as cheap as a dumb bomb, but not as risky for the delivery system.
If the F-35 is to be used primarily for air to air then stealth has value to get closer to the enemy and then fire first, but this depends on a number of things :-
The F-35 having better situational awareness than the opposition, the opposition having little or no ECM ability to spoof the Amraams, and the opposition being too busy to engage the F-35 before it can get out of range.Where the F-35 may be weaker is the agility and speed to remove itself from the fight. its all very well talking about how smooth it flies but high speed turning still has a place in AtoA, and an F-35 who has announced its presences by attacking might just need a high speed dash capability to get away from any bad situations.
Thats why the US sees a need for an F-22 to handle fighters, because the JSF isn’t designed to do that, ask yourself where they are different….
-The F-35 will use stand off weapons as well as stealth. It’s not gonna fly into the lethal radius of a double digit SAM site, but with its stealth, that radius is much smaller.
-The F-35 carries a lot of fuel, which means that if it needs to run, it can do so for a while most likely compared to an aircraft with shorter legs(and it’s capable of reaching its top speed, with a combat load, whereas a pursuer would be drag limited, from external stores.
-Your opinion on the F-35’s A/A capability isn’t based upon anything the pilots are saying, much less the USAF/LM. The F-35 IS designed to do A/A and A/G(just like the F-16/F-18/Rafale/etc….), except it’s stealthy too.
Sign In
