Bring, it was exactly the fact that the F-22 development program was headed toward a let’s say extremely specialized, single use plane and the fact that in the pursuit of just a single paramether i.e. an uniform 360° RCS that led to both cost overrun and delay and in turn to end up with a plane that could not be adapted to other roles than to the one they were originally conceived that end up into the abrupt end of production.

So you now say that those improvement they left apart can be easily installed, something extremely questionable IMHO but even if they were you still seem me to miss the main point.
The damage is not the lack of certain components on F-22, it’s the fact that the production was stopped at 187 and it was so exactly for the two reason listed above: enormous delays and cost overrun and a plane lacking any realistic possibility to be adapt to a less specialized and somewhat even unattainable mission.
So, given that actually it seems that for this reason they would be forced to retain in service a number of 30+ years old F-15C than Raptors maybe at this point it would be even more convenient to improve them.
At the contrary maybe, just maybe the aalternative way I suggested would had end up in let’s say, purchasing an additional 100 “austere” but multi role F-22B, resolving so even the problem of the delayed introduction of F-35.

Ermmm… so by deliberately creating a disingenuous chart, by your own admission, that somehow proves that a genuine attempt at laying out modern qualities was disingenuous?

Okay.

It was not crystal clear to you he was making a casual list to underline the faulty logic underneath yours? :confused:
Man, you was supposed to be the native english speaker there!
Anyway better not overextend this quarrel , I have made you some remarks, you kindly have changed your own to reflect what I said, so I’m not have the impression you have done such a thing maliciously, nor he have done its own to trick someone, as he clearly explained from the beginning his list was not a serious one but just a reverse proof of the alleged paralogism in your’s own.

X

The F-22 had developmental setbacks, and programatic adjustments throughout the latter half of its development as some tried to cancel it, while others tried to protect it. A lot of the features that eventually got chopped were present in its design and actually pursued in development. The program went through plenty of ‘adjustments’ as the political environment changed during and post the peace dividend and what exists now is a result of all that. So unless there are features that they did not think about, don’t blame the designers for the USAF or not wanting or not asking for stuff that currently is not there. You ask them to build per requirements, so if you are forced to cut capability something that would have contributed to its effectiveness would naturally have to go away to accommodate such a demand. There is no doubt that the capability that was chopped at various stages of development resulted in a net reduction in mission effectiveness for the F-22 and that applies to changes made pre and post down select. But they had to do what they had to do in order to ensure that the program survived.

– IRST – An Advanced IRST was planned, and GE (The top OEM working on IRST’s in the US) was contracted by Lockheed for it. The original DemVal design had an IRST in the wing-roots (one on each side), and as of 1997, Janes (Sweetman) claimed that they were still testing for its adoption around 1996.

LINK

Cheek Arrays were also part of the F-22 and there exists space to put them even now much the same way the PAKFA/T-50 has adopted them. This was dropped for cost reasons as part of other programatic adjustments –

It is now up to the USAF, Pentagon and the Congress to see to it that things that are needed are provided for but all that needs to be balanced with other costs especially since the Budget Control Act which has forced them to make short term decisions that quite often have negative long term consequences. Regardless, it seems like they will make a decision soon on an HMS as they have recently been cleared for the Aim-9X but won’t get a lot of its capabilities till late 2017 or 2018 with the Increment 3.2B. Following 3.2B they will likely move ahead with the HMS acquisition over the next 2-3 years but that’s about as fast as they can go given that the helmet isn’t really going to be of much help prior to 2017-18. Slow Yes, but not by design. HMS integration was a program requirement that was chopped for cost reasons quite late in the program so again, they demanded it. They’ve evaluated a couple of off the shelf HMS solutions already but had to push the timelines till after 3.2B due to prioritizing the right capabilities once they were forced to go back due to sequestration. Other more expensive capabilities will probably need to wait for a more serious upgrade cycle not different from a traditional MLU.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-improved-day-night-f-22-raptor-helmet-by-413962/

The USAF had an in service F-22 by 2005, and were planning to have an in service F-35A much earlier than 2016 and therefore never created any requirements for an advanced 4.5+ generation F-15 or F-16 (recall the F-16U offer made to the USAF by the UAE which was promptly declined). This time-frame also coincided with a massive reduction i the USAF fighter fleet, largely demanded by a change in the threat environment, the type of missions it was expected to fight over a 10-20 year period, and the capability that it could get through smart munitions and unmanned aviation (that entire enterprise was created from scratch, no doubt taking money from other modernization efforts).

Political realities would have meant that any advanced version demanded would have most likely resulted in $$’s moving form either the ATF program, or the JSF program to support a lower cost, lower risk program which would have been counter productive to their eventual goals. One could disagree with their goals but political realities within the US basically mean that the services have to be careful with their requests and plan for such considerations. Much of then F-15 upgrades will now make them highly capable 4+ generation aircraft but they won’t be buying new ones primarily because there is a lot of life left in a lot of them (especially the strike eagle fleet). The F-16 modernization program fell through post the BCA and had sequestration not hit, they would have pursued it too.

just ne thing: I have not placed any blame on the designer, that obviously do what they are asked to do but precisely with the ones that have made a mess with requirementm development and cutting.
They preferred to not compromise any part of the stringent stealth requirement but chopped all the rest so to have in the end a plane unable to operate with both the capabilities and the numbers needed.

Let’s modify the chart a bit in order to get you an idea what I mean..

Aircraft / Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) / TWR / 3D TVC / IRST / HMCS / medium IR AAMs

F-22 / xx / 1.xx / no / no / no / no
Su-27 / 68 / 1.22 / no / yes / yes / yes
Rafale / 55 / 1.25 / no / no / no / yes
Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / yes / yes / yes / yes

Get my point? I can define whatever criteria I see fit in order to make my design appear “better”. There is no indication which says that your criteria are more credible than mine.. For instance, I personally consider LOAL of limited use, much less important than having an IRST onboard.

The F-22 is , as said before, an one of a kind plane and IMHO a negative one.
It seems, as I have written in another forum, that in order to get to a 5.0 generation fighter and one without any compromise ASAP they have jumped into it directly from F-15 without any though about inserting even one of the innovations that were in the meantime introduced in the 4,5 gen.
So you have a plane with a level of sophistication that would not be see anymore even in successive 5 & 6 generation planes but in the same moment lacking features that even the most basical Not -US fighter usually have.
The opposite of such an approach can be seen in the Su-35 in which the technical possibilities offered by the 4,5 gen are hyped to the max but with just some limited concession in the field of RCS reduction for what it pertain the successive level: 4,99 gen fighter?
This just for highlighting the different doctrine and mindset of the various players, not to favor one over the other.
Still I happily salute the comeback of the medium range IR missiles in the VKS as shown in Syria.
Always a good thing seeing the forming of new couplets. :dev2:

Thanks.

Aircraft / Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) / TWR / HOBS / LOAL / HMCS / IIR AAMs / IRST / VTAS

MiG-29 / 74 / 1.21 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

Su-27 / 68 / 1.22 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

MiG-35 / 74 / 1.31 / No / Yes 75deg / Yes / No / Yes / No

J-10 / 75 / 1.08 / No / No / Yes / Yes / Yes / No

Gripen C / 58 / 0.97 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

F-15 C / 58* / 1.36* / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

F-16 C / 79 / 1.21 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / No / No

Rafale C / 55 / 1.25 / Yes / Yes 90deg / No / Yes / Yes / Yes

Typhoon / 54 / >1.35 / Yes / Yes 90deg / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes

*Used 28,000lb empty. Af.mil states 31,700lb??? Which would change figures to 66lb/ft^2 and 1.2 TWR.

THANKS. This is the just way to make the thread go smooth.

Two colors IR seekers is inferior to IIR seeker ( just saying )

And a plane without IRST is way inferior to one with it (just saying also).
In any case a fair comparison between the two different technologies would take a lot of effort IMHO, not just a one (or two) line post.
Maybe even a new thread…

I conducted the comparison of the aircraft mentioned in the title, no bias was intended. But since you asked.

Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / No / No / Yes / No / No

MiG-35 / 74 / 1.31 / No / No / Yes / No / No

I have not any doubt about the fact that you have reported the data correctly and in their integrity, Starfish prime.
Also because i’m absolutely certain that in the site you have taken it they have chosen those parameter on purpose.

90°hobs/LOAL/IIR seeker are all referred not to the plane in itself,but to the type of IR missile they carry.
Until you keep on referring to the old R-73 for the russian ones, Su-27 or 35 changes nothing in that regard.

Now Vanilla R-73 is there from 1984 when AIM-9x is operarive from 2003, updated version of the former are 75° degree boresight and use dual band seeker, that’s a different technology compared to IIR but fits the same scope.
In the same moment, why not any mention of the much more important IRST that’s instead a integral component of the plane, not of the missile and come as a standard in both russian planes and eurocanards?
I would dare to say that in this case the answer is just contained in the question…

In any case nothing against your work and intention: just as usual a caveat regarding a certain peculiar way used by some sources, above all the ones coming from the producers itself, to put down things in a certain peculiar manner.:eagerness:’

Thats only partly the case. The other reason is that they are simply going to require a different capability than what has earlier been traditionally associated with a fighter aircraft. Even the CSBA study pointed to an all aspect LO, possibly subsonic, very large platform that could penetrate and has a large kinetic magazine, in addition to plenty of room for directed energy solutions, and of course very large sensors to develop SA in a battle space where the opponent puts a price on the SA (See adversary R&D and investment in LO and networks). Directed Energy, and higher survivability features (Network attack, Cognitive EW, All aspect/broadband stealth etc) will probably be those few design criteria that differentiate such an aircraft from its 5th generation predecessors but again with some trade-offs to accommodate that. What you aren’t going to get is a Mach 3 super cruiser that takes long range Directed Energy pot shots at opponents..As they mention int he video, whether its A2A, or A2G you have to go through the entire kill chain to see how each and every element is addressed by the family of systems, and if they are looking to provide Counter Air component to the Penetrating family, then you have to look at each and every aspect of that.

What I suspect is that the program-office and those within the USAF that support it, are looking for a penetrating long range aircraft that can accommodate third-offset technologies that aren’t being designed specifically for this mission or this aircraft but are being funded across the enterprise. Things such as newer EA investments, directed energy etc etc that are receiving money for multiple mission sets. They are likely to focus on the platform and let 3rd offset technologies drop into it as they come along through their dev. cycles. Thats the RCO approach and they’ve used something similar on the B-21/LRS-B program leaving ‘hooks’ out for maturing technologies to be ‘dropped-in’ as they are ready.

Bring_on_it, this time i would say that your attention about the bureaucratic aspects of the requirement formation/acquisition processes has bring a light upon a quite interesting evolution into the way to address potential emerging problems.
So, if I have not understood wrong, instead of tlooking exclusively into acquiring a new item at the end of a long, complicated and costly process, they would instead try to find way to cover in the meantime almost a part of the perceived capability sought trough other means like, just to say, acquisition of new types of weaponries, modification of existing air frames, new way to use some other assets and so on…
Given all the possible praises to the long awayted return of the once traditional american pragmatism in the field of defense matter, allow me to point my limited ,yet hope consistent disagreement on what you say.
The first one is where you affirm that the f-35 was never intended to replace the F-15C, the F-15E and the F-22. Maybe it was so at the very beginning of the program but given that the number of the F-35A to acquire by the USAF was set on 1760 i.e. way more that the total number of A-10 and F-16 actually in active service, simple arithmetics seem me to say otherwise.
Maybe, also with all the probability, they would be the last to be taken over but surely the F-15E was into such a number and probably also the vanilla Eagle, almost if the total number of envisioned USAF fighter fleet I have red (+/- 1900) are correct.
Add to it the fact that will all the probability also the A-10 would stay there for a long time and all the doubt expressed in the article you have posted about the reduction of total F-35a acquisition seems to acquire some clear and, for certain aspect, worrying consistency.