LmRaptorThe F-22 has an airframe and engine package that is optimised for higher altitudes, speeds and agility, thus it’s a better performer than the F-35. Being optimised for air superiority, it has reportedly got better stealth; remember the marbles (a 1 cm marble – a 2 cm marble has an RCS of in the region of 0.0001m^2) vs golfballs? The F-22 also has greater all aspect stealth, not just positionaly but also in terms of stealth vs different radar bands other than X. Its IR signature will be lower at high speeds aswell due to supercruise. There was always that afordability issue that went hand in hand with designing the F-35.
The F-35 may have a slight range advantage on internal fuel in comparison to the F-22, but with so many of these exact specifications unavailiable to us its hard to know for certain.
The F-35 has an advantage when it comes to the age of its systems, being developed arguably a decade later than the F-22s. But the fact of the matter is, when all these newer systems on the F-35 are fully operational and matured, most of the systems on the F-22 will have been upgraded. I think it’s a common misperception that the F-22 is a decade older than the F-35, and forever will be – as the systems onboard are totally interchangeable with systems of todays technology. For example Northrop have just won xxxx million dollars to upgrade the CNI systems onboard the Raptor. The bigger APG-77 when fully matured and upgraded, being based on newer tech like the F-35s radar will eventually be on the same tech level, especially in 201X when both systems are in operational service. While the F-22s radar may never be as AtG optimised in its software it will have a better range, especially at the edge of its gimbal – something crucial for its cranking tactics in the supersonic BVR game. Thus it could be argued when both systems are fully matured, potentially the Raptor will have the better radar by some margin.
The F-22 has greater internal volume for avionics and a greater power source to power them. The F-35s 360 degree DAS system was again based on the F-22s passive(IR) MAW system, which is already used onboard the F-22 to collect data other than missiles inbound, like an IRST with certain limitations. This means it probably has the potential to be upgraded in later years to full DAS standards. The F-22 also has provision in later blocks to add new side-looking radars in its nose cheeks, and a futuristic IRST system, like EOTS but it was rumoured to be based on the an advanced IRST in development for the new E-2 Hawkeye(a black project?) if I remember correctly. On to the HMD, it is very likely in 2016, when AIM-9X integration takes place we will see a HMD based system being funded for the F-22 or at least some work towards it, especially if they can fix the mapping of the cockpit issues.
But the F-22s biggest advantage currently in terms of technology is its AN/ALR-94. Arguably its most expensive and advanced piece of kit, cruical for long range tracking and ID’ing of emitters on the ground and in the air. This system will be used to find targets like an S-400 or a Su-35 and cue weapons onto them passively. It will be essential for DEAD/SEAD missions. While the F-35 will have some capability with a similar yet inferior system with fewer antennas. Cost being a big issue here.
Another factor here is with net-centric warfare, and new LPI datalinks, F-22s and F-35s will share information with each other, so while one may have be better at gathering information due to a specific circumstance, the overall picture they share and recieve will be the same.
In short my point is: in time the F-22s internal tech/avionics will be upgraded to the F-35s standard. All in a higher performing and stealthier airframe.
________
MERCEDES-BENZ SL-CLASS
LmRaptorIm not sure if this has been posted before, but this is a video of the Gulfstream/Mig-29/F-15 over Groom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l08tgVSjIU
________
Body science
LmRaptorbring_it_on the Eurofighters empty weight is actually about 11 tons, 10995 kg, which translates to 24,239 lbs.
________
HERBAL VAPORIZER PORTABLE
LmRaptorBut…how do you do with your F-22 if you first are forcing to do an eye identification of a transportaircraft equipped with just HMD and short range missiles?
Do you first shoot your missile and “after that” identify the transporter?
The human right said anything other than only shoot, shoot and again shoot your missiles like you have a play station and a TV in your bedroom!
Shoot first and ten……..?
It is that I mean a shoot from a transporter or other aircrafts withouth forcing to do very advances manouverings.
I want a more serious debate among such problems among this very $$$$$$ expensive aircraft (F-22A) and not only your superlatives. Do you really understand?????????
If you are implying that world air forces equip transport type aircraft with HMS/HMD, high off-boresight missiles and some kind of IRST/DAS system to track enemy fighters in a ploy to self escort themselves – then its a waste of time.
As Bring_it_on stated earlier, even if the rules of engagement dictate that the fighter must visually ID the transport (ignoring the great advances in NCTR systems, such as SAR painting a visual ID of the transport at BVR ranges), thus negating its huge BVR advantage, it still poses a much more potent WVR threat. The fighter will have total contempt of engagement, meaning it can chose when and where to engage the transport. It can fly up its backside for instance, or fly in from a much greater altitude, and at much greater speeds. It will have a total kinetic advantage over the transport, extending the range of its WVR weapons, which can be crucial in WVR.
Remember the transport is a much larger target, much easier to spot and ID, a sitting duck in other words. Even non HOBS/HMD equiped fighters will assume an advantage in the WVR against transports, purely from a positional and a kinetic energy stand-point; the fighter will be able to fire right at the edge of its missile’s range envelope, and crank off at supersonic speeds in the other direction.
LmRaptorMost of the informed opinion I’ve read over the years places the Typhoon squarely behind only the F-22 in A-A potency. I’ve seen the Rafale placed as low as even with the F-15C/D in that same category, and occasionally even below the Gripen.
Most of that “informed” opinion on these forums comes from the british side to be honest. Especially from journo’s, not to say theyr wrong; I tend to agree with them, but I dont believe the EFs edge against contemporary FJs is as great as they make out.
________
Box vaporizer
LmRaptorThats one sick picture.
LmRaptorAre they going to send raptors to Farnborough? I’ll be in Europe during that period so really want to go if the raptor comes . Wont be able to see any US shows this year unfortunately.
Both RIAT and Farnborough will have flying displays. No static displays. Apparently they/it will be stationed at Lakenheath and fly down for the demos. Il be at both :).
LmRaptor2 Points.
A) If the enemy decides not to fight conventionally against the Raptor, the Raptor has done its job. Its attained Air superiority. If the enemy decides to fight the Raptor, its will do its job, achieving air superiority. Legacy jets can’t be assured the same outcome against new threats. And as an Expeditionary force moving the amount of legacy jets to do the same job as a few Raptors would be very expensive. If the enemy is intimdated into using gorilla tactics, thats a good thing. Id rather that than fighting conventionally for air superiority without the Raptor against Su-XX, where they bomb our tank divisions and straffe our troops. That kind of warfare leads to a lot more causulties, ie WWII. Much more than 4000 troops in 6 years of fighting believe me.
B)NG IADS, pose a huge threat, and they wont just pack up and hide during a US lead invasion. That kind of threat wont ever just be hidden in the desert sands. That being said the F-22 is potentially the premier SEAD/DEAD assert the world over if developed properly.
________
Spice weed
LmRaptorI know its a bit early, but was anyone at the Tyndall AFB? F-22 demo team supposed to have stopped over there.
According to the schedule:
So what happen? How was it? Who got it on cam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwQ8A00KgS8
Very interesting manuever on 37 secs.
LmRaptorYour attempt to use emotion to make a logocal argument is fundementally flawed. Iraq should not have turned out the way it has. The reason it did was gross incompetance on the part of the coalotion. However that incompetance does not take away from the moral justification of the exercise. All the excrement about Iraqi’s not being capable of western government is just that excrement. The Iraqi people were failed by the west but the objective was moral. There is a plethora of reasons why this has not happened in the past, the cold war, states that are too strong (China/NK for instance), the fact is that Saddam was especially bad and his state was and he fitted in with a grand strategic approach to the war on terror.
“Iraq should not have turned out the way it has. The reason it did was gross incompetance on the part of the coalotion.”
Based on that fact alone, is that not disproportionality? Where, because of our coalitions incompetence or our inability to care or perhaps due to the fact that we were blinded by alterior motives, we have ruined a country.
“However that incompetance does not take away from the moral justification of the exercise.”
At the start of the war all I remember watching on sky was how we would find WMDs. And if the coalition truely went in at the start for moral reasons, why have they not been as quick now days to enforce world peace throughout the world? Why is nothing happening in Zimbabwe? A country a darn side weaker militarily than Iraq ever was. Rwanda happened well after the cold war finished. US/UK going into Iraq for moral reasons to me is utter BS.
“All the excrement about Iraqi’s not being capable of western government is just that excrement.”
I’l believe that when I see it. Mabye in the next 40 years when the current generation are dead.
“the fact is that Saddam was especially bad and his state was and he fitted in with a grand strategic approach to the war on terror.”
And Robert is not a terrorist? Well at least one that has no bearing on the US…
________
LovelyWendie99
LmRaptorBack to the original argument. I was basing what I proposed, about sub-launched cruise missiles attacking the targets I mentioned. I was defending Jon James because I assumed he meant attacking Buenos Aires in a tactical sense and not in a carpet bombing/targeting civilian sense. Where the casualties of that could be laid at the feet of the Argentinian government and not the UK. If by ‘trashing’, ‘pounding’ or ‘having your city trashed’ he meant targeting civilians intentionally then of course I dont stand by my comments. But if he meant attacking/trashing/pounding the city in a tactical sense then I dont see how that is a bad deterrent.
@Lawrence- If you make it clear to the Argentinians that if they attempt to take the Falklands that XXX is going to happen to them during the invasion; then how is that not a deterent.
@Swerve- How edgy would the Americans get if we asked to purchase more Tomahawks? Its business afterall, and especially when the issue is a foreign power invading british sovereign territory.
@Costs- Maintaining a garrison would surely be a much more expensive option in comparison to maintaing a sea based deterent that once deployed wouldn’t need half the money to maintain its presense.
________
Rohypnol rehab forums
LmRaptor1) I wish everybody would get over this International Law cr*p. Domestic law works because the state, the sponsor and enforcer of the law, maintains a monopoly on the use of organised violence. On an International level this is simply not the case, there is no state an no monopoly. The laws were written by the criminals and it is the criminals who enforce them and judge upon them. They are designed with such flexibility as to be interpretable to any desired conclusion. The very reason that many of the Iraq resolutions got passed was because one side genuinely thought it meant what they wanted whilst the other thought it meant what they wanted. In reality it meant both. So please leave the illegal war BS alone.
2) Given Saddams history on human rights and invading other peoples countries I think that it was entirely proportional and the use of force was set to achieve the desired objective. Granted this was incompetant in many cases, especially the attacks on infrastructure but the use of force was proportional to the objective and the conflict certainly morally justifiable. Unless of course you think genocidal evil dictators are a good thing. The argument there is one of intervention. China argues that no state should have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another (partially explains there lack of effort over Darfur) this is largely because of their own internal activities such as Tianamen square. The west on the otherhand tends to support interventionism (why they have pushed the Darfur issue so much), now the question is what is the difference between intervening in a state to prevent famine and intervening to remove a genocidal regime?
Mate, fair enough on all points; I’d even agree with your argument if there was something called consistency. Sadly there seems to be no consistency in any of this and therefore no proportionality. I can’t defend my countries actions in Iraq because they stand by and do nothing in Zimbabwe, a country that at least used to be full of expats. I can’t morally defend the West over whats happened in Iraq when I look at what happened in Rwanda. Then I look again and I see definite potential, potential for western political and economic gain in a country like Iraq. I look at Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa, I hardly see as much potential. That makes me wonder if your 2nd point holds any water.
It therefore comes down again to a question of motivation. Why did we go into Iraq? If we went into Iraq for WMDs and regime change was the only way to achieve it.. fair enough. However thats a massive political blunder and a clear case of disproportionality. We have destroyed a countries infrastructure, killed thousands and thousands of people, disrupted the region and there are no WMDs, no proportionality. We destroyed a lot for our initial objectives, and it turned out we were wrong and we failed. Hardly a case of proportionality if you ask me. It’s a bit like if I were to paralyse a guy for the rest of his life, because my drunk mate thought he saw him sleeping with my wife and it turned out my mate had got the wrong girl.
If we went in because of what Saddam has done in the past… the supposed moral argument, well as I have written above, why have we not applied this rule to all the evil dictators around the world? I know the answer to that as Im sure you do. I also look to the casualty list; it seems to me this war has killed a lot more people in total than Saddam ever did. But the death toll is still rising. Perhaps we should have realised, before we engaged in a war that has had disproportionate consequences, that we could not impose our form of government in a country like Iraq, that to be blunt needs a tough hand to keep all in check.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQQkjkUOwhA&feature=related
To the majority of the people in Iraq, id say its been rather disporportionate.
________
Lamborghini V10 Specifications
LmRaptorYou don’t get it. A nuclear attack on New York is so large that it qualifies as all-out war, & all restraints are off. A proportional response could be so large that it would destroy Russia as a functioning state. As I said, proportionality does not demand an equal response. If someone punches you on the nose, you don’t have to try carefully to hit him back with equal force, in the same place. You can hit him harder, kick him hard in the genitals if you want. Whatever it takes to stop him doing it again. But you can’t wipe out his family, because that’s disproportionate.
If the USA nuked Moscow in response to a Russian ship shelling one of the Aleutian islands & killing a couple of locals, that would be disproportionate. Sinking the first Russian warship in the area that could be located & killing a couple of hundred Russian seamen to hint to the Russians that such activities should not be repeated would be fine.
Ok that is fair enough. However, I dont see how using Sub based cruise missiles to hit strategic/command and control/power stations/communications/military targets in Argentina is disproportional to Argentina invading the Falklands; when used as a means of deterence!
Im not saying you should target civilians; but why shouldn’t you be allowed to pound away at Argentinian infrastructure. It would ultimately mean preventing a possible invasion of the Falklands; I hardly see how they would be willing to risk the huge infrastructural loss, that sub-lunched cruise missiles would impose on the country. A much greater loss would be incured by Argentina than the gain it would benefit from, by taking the Falklands.
Even if it meant expending large quantities of cruise missiles I dont see how that would be any more expensive than maintaining a sizeable garrison on the Islands, while the sub-based option offers a much more intimidating form of deterence.
________
Extreme q vaporizer
LmRaptorI cant see how proportionality played any role in the illegal regime change in Iraq; one that was based on false pretense from the start. A war that the UK willingly particpated in. Im not so sure its on that idealistic side of the fence.
________
The cigar boss
LmRaptorI agree with Jon; especially in the heat of the moment, proportionality would be blatantly ignored in the real world.
“Because of proportionality, which, BTW, is enshrined in international laws & treaties this country helped draft & has signed.”
Hypothetically:
If Russia nuked New York; id hardly expect a proportional response.
________
Iolite Portable Vaporizers
Sign In
