While the F-22 has some nice strike features and is going to officialy replace the F-117, it cannot do everything the Nighthawk does. 2000lb LGBs are the weapon of choice for hardened targets. The Raptor can neither carry nor self-designate those.
F-35 will be the real F-117 replacement.

Jackonicko, the Globalsecurity stuff you posted looks vastly outdated…

I’d take this figures with a grain of salt. They look rather optimistic, similar to the proposed F-15N weight estimates by McDD. Esp. when compared to the Rafale C/M, where the difference is about 500kg.
Probably, this would have turned the F-18 into another F-16 where you need several stuctural upgrades to keep the fleet going over its lifetime. 😀

Thanks for the excellent info. 🙂

I wonder though if the double rack makes sense now since the Rafale F2 is in service finally.

btw, BANG/CBEMS stands for “Bombe Aeronvale de Nouvelle Generation / Corps de Bombe a Effets Multiples Securise” 🙂

I could make a better PSed pic of a Raptor and a J-10 in MS paint:D

Its a shame how those CFTs destroy the graceful lines of the “Ching-kuo Imposing Eagle”.
And it looks like it is about to tip over any moment.

In the last pic, the Rafale is loaded with six CBEMS-BANG 125kg bombs.
But isnt the CBEMS-BANG basically a Mk81 or Mk82 with paveway kit? Why not just call it Paveway? The French… 😀

From currently published figures this goal will be missed, when we focus on pure dogfight performance criteria (acceleration, turn rate). But as I said: If it is not needed or required, it is idiotic to design it this way. The US armed forces only get an aircraft as good as they define it, and in my opinion that is one of the primary reasons for sobering results of some designs. The American aircraft industry is the most capable and can deliver nearly everything, and that for acceptable costs (relative to the economical power of the country) and in acceptable time frames. Some aircraft suffered from contradicting requirements, and sometimes illusions about technical capability.

Maybe, maybe not. Weight and thrust are subject to change.
And theres no point comparing a clean 4th gen fighter to a F-35. A clean F-16 and one loaded with 6 missiles are two different things.
The F-35 will be no EF or Raptor, but no flying brick either.
Reg. vortex: the F-35 design looks like a mini Raptor, which is said to have some nice vortex generating devices.