So how outdated is the F-22 now that other nations are pushing ahead with their own 5th gen programs?
>inb4 Amerifats saying "LOL, 7 PAKFA'S CAN NEVER TAKE ON 200 RAPTORS"
That's not the question, I'm not asking about numbers, I'm asking about technology.
Eurofags just hates America, and if they have to suck Mudslime cock to piss us off then they will gladly swallow the snackload. Also the Eurofighter is absolute shit, so much so that everyone is starting to cancel their orders and/or changing them to the F-35 or RAFALE.
To be fair, the "Slavs" use other technology. The Czechs use Saab JAS 39 Gripen, and the Slovaks have signed an agreement with the Czechs to share tech; they'll be replacing their MiG-29 Fulcrum fleet with Gripen.
Speaking of the MiG, the Poles use them; the East German Air Force used them (and continued to use them after reunification), but by 2004, all of their MiGs were sold to the Poles for 1 Euro apiece. The Slovaks currently use the Fulcrum, and so do the Russians themselves (also, the ground assault improved MiG-35).
The MiG-29 was designed to be superior to the F-16, and by many measures, it does so.
The F-22 is a dead program at this point, anyway. The JSF/F-35 program is the 5th generation fighter platform of choice… though I think air superiority is going to go the way of close air support and theater surveillance—drones.
It's a 90's stealth fighter that depends on it's "stealth" to survive because it can't dog fight.
That should be enough to tell you how outdated it is.
Super cruise is relevant if you need to cover a large amount of airspace with a small amount of aircraft. However, it is still more economical to cruise below the speed of sound because physics are, well, physics.
Yes and no, next gen will have variable cycle engines so they'll probably have super cruise as a result, although I'm not sure if that would be a specific goal they're setting out to achieve
>using cherrypicked training footage
You say this as if the F-22 couldn't do the exact same thing to any 4.5 gen if it got behind them (which it has a greater chance of, because you know, stealth).
Really, the only things the F-22 lacks right now is IRST and HMD. The lack of HMD will most likely be solved in a future upgrade cycle, but I'm not sure how they'd incorporate IRST. Other than that, the Raptor probably has the best non-IRST passive sensor suite next to the F-35.
You seem to think that this functions where each plane is at a concrete level of functionality and only by making new planes is that level increased. Already upgrade programs are being put together for the F-22 that will allowing it retain superiority or parity with other platforms. In turn, those other nations' fighters will receive their own upgrade packages so that they might retain parity with the USA. Except for Russia who can't afford it.
Despite it's age the Raptor still defines the state of the art and is unmatched by any other craft.
No other nation's 5th generation aircraft program has produced a workable stealth craft yet, and the cost and complexity of doing so is prohibitive. The engines are especially difficult, with neither China nor Russia able to produce anything remotely comparable.
Lessons learned in the F-22 program are being applied to the F-35 program. While never intended to match the F-22, the F-35 has diverse and useful capabilities.
>Lessons learned in the F-22 program are being applied to the F-35 program
as in, make it so overpriced that you can only afford a handful?
it's nice that you are bragging about f-22 being the best, but by far the most of your planes are old f-16 and f-15
>A game changer
It has radar and missiles effective at far longer ranges then IRST. Unless IRST somehow makes you invulnerable to exploding when hit by an air to air missile, it doesn't counter the F-22 very well.
Which are still superior to anything else anyone has
It speaks volumes about other countries aviation industries when out of the the only two other nations that have tried to build 5th gen fighters, one's goal was to have an RCS of a Superbug and the other has to shill on /k/ about how great it totally is.
Yeah, it sucks being over here having a thousand of the second best air superiority platform in the world.
>The fucking viper
Not the greatest at anything, but goddamn, there are a million of these little fuckers.
>second best air superiority platform in the world.
Not even close.
Besides, even the Americans don't have the best F-15's, the South Korean's Slam Eagles blow the originals out the fucking water.
If they weren't superior, why is the rest of the world spending billions just to keep up with them
what people don't realizes is it's not WWII
you don't just troll around and get into dogfights with whomever you happen accross
the network of support from air refueling to carriers to airborne radar and satellite intel are actually FAR more important than which aircraft can turn slightly faster or some shit like that
they are part of a whole package now, not lone planes
and in that regard the USA pwns all without question
Actually the fact that the F-22 is older means it's better. More time to work out kinks, coding issues, etc.
Don't believe for a second that China and Russia don't have issues with their fighters. Their defense industry is controlled by the state though, so you'll never hear a peep.
It's why US planes have been BTFOing slavshit on a constant basis for the past 30 years.
The fear in your post is palpable over the internet.
>Essentially admitting they can't go toe to toe
war isn't supposed to be "fair". you use whatever works.
russia needs a counter against american air force. but that doesn't mean they need a plane that can win 1v1 fights with f-22. there are cheaper ways to do this.
> missile gets detected
> AWACS just flips the switch for radar
> missile misses because lolradarguided
> AWACS now lights up the plane that launched the missile
> Fighters or SAM blows up plane
That sure made the AWACS a killer, but the plane that launched the missile is kill.
>Guidance is by inertial navigation until the missile is close enough to the target to use active radar for terminal homing.
>It has a lock-on range of 40 km (22 nmi)
I'm afraid turning off the radar wont help
The US is ahead of Russia and China in airborne radar, IRSTs, stealth, engines and in avionics.
Platform specifically though, the F-22 is still ahead in radar, stealth and engines, but unfortunately carries no IRST at the moment. The Raptor also hasn't yet received a helmet mounted sight; not even even JHMCS.
>Also the Eurofighter is absolute shit, so much so that everyone is starting to cancel their orders and/or changing them to the F-35 or RAFALE.
citation motherfucker, the typhoon is markedly superior to the rafale (which has suffered some significant cancellations)
>Only if it's REALLY high supercruise (a la F-22 or Concorde). Anything less than M1.5 simply isn't worth the additional fuel burn.
Why post if you don't understand what supercruise is?
> Detection and tracking of an expanded
variety of target types, including slow or
maneuvering targets, helicopters, and
high speed targets such as missiles
And to answer your question, probably -10 dBsm or so.
Yeah, the Russian plan sort of falls apart when it detects the Russian 400 miles away and at 300 miles away from the E-3 an obsolete F-16 shoots the Russian down with an AIM 120.
>how outdated is the F-22 now that other nations are pushing ahead with their own 5th gen programs?
F-22 was build as ULTIMATE Flanker killer. As a god of air superiority. Other nations build steals multirole fighters. In air to air engagements F-22 can have his superiority or at least he will be equal to his competitors. In any other missions new planes will be better. Problem that F-22 is not for sale. And chances for him to see real fight (and pay off his price) are lower and lower.
>So how outdated is the F-22
>US has had 4 flavors of operational stealth aircraft starting back in the 80s
>everyone else: still 0
>Literally a conflict between Austrians and Serbs whose alliance networks went insane
>The jews & eternal anglo started 2 world wars to stop a growing Germany.
>Literally started by German aggression and Lebensraum, Soviet expansionism, and Japanese Militaristic interservice rivalry constantly intensifying the conflict
>Hurr everyone but the actual aggressors to blame
>Literally started by German aggression and Lebensraum
you aren't worth debating with if you think WW2 and WW1 aren't extremely intertwined.
To say WW2 was started when the krauts started taking soil is just so fucking stupid.
Oh, the economic environment that created the rise of the Nazi party was definitely the result of the Treaty of Versailles and its reparation conditions, but it was still the acts of said party using extreme nationalism to build up to that.
>but it was still the acts of said party using extreme nationalism to build up to that.
"black and white etc" just doesn't have the impact I need right now.
yes, ultimately you can reduce WW2 to being on the krauts since they technically threw the first physical punch
They didn't need to start conquering their neighbors. Under the Nazi government they had major economic reform fixing the hyperinflation rapidly, huge infrastructure upgrades, and an overall rapid recovery from the Great Depression. It was rhetoric about Lebensraum that lead to the annexations and invasions.
>completely ignoring any and all things that the allies did, despite the fact Germany would have given them white peace at any time throughout both world wars
It was the ALLIES who wanted the world wars
Riiiiggghhhhttttt. Because Britain didn't try every single thing they could to prevent the war before Churchill. It's great how much you're stretching to defend your point without actually presenting any proof of it.
>We totally weren't giving Poland a guarrentee of independence that we had no intention of upholding
>We totally weren't telling Poland to start a war, we'll give them more land from Germany
The idea of the west trying to "prevent war" is blatant historical revisionism
>Riiiiggghhhhttttt. Because Britain didn't try every single thing they could to prevent the war before Churchill.
they literally didn't
the west had no intention of allowing germany to survive intact. when they came up with an economic system that bypasses western theory entirely, you have a major problem.
Try being less ignorant about how the world works
By any objective viewpoint, the west are in fact the bad guys.
It's impossible to ignore that the soviets defaulted as allies to the west while they were invading finland/baltics
While Germany is the bad guys for reclaiming land they lost in ww1
>how many fighters do you want to tie up for AWACS escort?
AWACs support fighters. They're a strategic element to air superiority that is pretty much a pre-requisite of you winning.
Do you even history?
The policy of "appeasment" was adopted when Germany started invading other countries. Britian literally said "we dont want war so let them take what they want till they are happy." It wasn't till France was invaded and the British mainland was under threat that the Brits even considered war.
>Kek. Well between the choice of being russian or chinese vs usa, ill choose to be an american.
Did you know the US had around 100,000 Wehrmacht troops ready to be reactivated at the conclusion of WW2 incase there was a conflict with the soviets?
That's how fucking stupid the west was with regards to its geopolitical aims in WW2, and reflective as a whole on western geopolitics during the time period.
Whats that supposed to mean?
The US starts the whole vietnam war, and after 10 years of war, abandon their allies to be genocided by communists
Who's the "good guys" there? Retard?
What does the living standards of the west have to do with the morality of their actions?
And before the retard even replies with muh gulf of tonkin, hear this:
MACV SOG intentionally started shit in the gulf (literal shelling of islands) before that bullshit went down. US Army SF started the war.
>No death camps
The US Army didn't find any, either. kek
What he said. The job of the E-3 is to detect shit and say "hey guys, go blow that shit up".
It's not 'escorting' it if going where it tells them to kill the shit it finds is their job.
The policy was litterally called appeasement. They LITTERALLY repeatedly negotiated with Germany that they could keep what they had already invaded if they stopped. It wasnt buying time, it was hoping they would stop on thier own.
>No death camps
neither did Germany
>No ethnic cleansing
Perhaps you failed history class
>No mass rapes
Which is why they had to censor the media of the occupied countries to cover up rapes & robberies & murders right?
It was the allies who invented the "strategic" mass murder of civilians through bombing.
The morgenthau plan for Germany WAS in fact mass genocide of germans
And the Soviets were the buddies of FDR, who engaged in all those things.
>do the WW2 thing, kneecap germany
>war ends, spend the next half century preparing to fight the slavs
yes, it's fucking stupid.
In hindsight we shoulda just fucking rolled east with the krauts side by side and saved eastern europe from 50 years of misery
The Tonkin resolution was an excuse yes. But the French were in the war first, people tend to forget that Vietnam was at war from 1950-1975 with US involvement starting in 59.
What war are we talking about? In WWII US troops found death camps. In several other wars since we did as well,
>Britain and America have good living conditions
>this means its moral to bomb cities or ships filled with refugees
In hindsight, things happened exactly as planned.
Soviets were given the bomb by communists like oppenheimer
Then they had the duo-polar new world order that they wanted.
Was there ever a communist country that the US didn't fund/aid?
>it's okay to make excuses when the americans do it
also, the US Army investigators visited 10 camps I believe and none were determined to be death camps, the only time allegations of death camps arose was during the post war trials. From the slavs.
Since the end of the war about 3,000,000 people, mostly women and children and overaged men, have been killed in eastern Germany and south-eastern Europe; about 15,000,000 people have been deported or had to flee from their homesteads and are on the road. About 25 per cent of these people, over 3,000,000 have perished. About 4,000,000 men and women have been deported to eastern Europe and Russia as slaves. It seems that the elimination of the German population of eastern Europe - at least 15,000,000 people - was planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta. Churchill had said to Mikolajczyk when the latter protested during the negotiations at Moscow against forcing Poland to incorporate eastern Germany Don't mind the five or more million Germans. Stalin will see to them. You will have no trouble with them they will cease to exist.
Quoted by Sen. Homer Capehart in speech before U.S. Senate, Feb. 5, 1946.
“Germany is becoming too strong. We must crush her.” To American General Robert E. Wood, in November 1936. Quoted in Peter H. Nicoll, Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland, p. 83.
“Germany’s unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.” Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, as quoted in Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War (Foreword to the second edition 2001), originally published in 1938.
“I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war; what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau.” Quoted in Juan Maler, Die Unvollendete, p. 27.
>people actually proclaiming russia and china to be the "good" guys.
Thats why, after the fall of the iron curtain, pretty much every country ran to the west.
Because the west was the bad guys.
Makes perfect sense.
Vatniks, not even once.
>acknowledging that the western powers have more than dipped their feet into the pool of evil fuckery means russia and china are the good guys
that's quite the leap you've made
The USA isn't a perfect moral actor. The point still stands that being a US ally helped all the best countries to live in today. Japan, S. Korea, Germany, etc etc. Even Vietnam is currently one of the most pro American countries in the world.
Ooohkay, so you are essentially agreeing with me, because i am argueing against the east being the "good guy", which is the arguement.
The arguement is not the moral piety of the western nations, its the relativity to the east thats the question.
>The MiG-29 was designed to be superior to the F-16, and by many measures, it does so.
Only thing it had over contemporary western aircraft was helmet mounted sight for IR-AAM's. It had shit radar, smoky as fuck engines, obsolete avionics...
You must be trolling. Just about every US military command found death camps. This is very well known and there are litterally thousands of photos of these camps as they were liberated.
>In WWII US troops found death camps.
Nope. All extermination camps were in the east. Kulmhof, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, Majdanek and Trostenets were all in Poland and weren't liberated by US forces.
The first major camp, Majdanek, was discovered by the advancing Soviets on July 23, 1944. Auschwitz was liberated, also by the Soviets, on January 27, 1945; Buchenwald by the Americans on April 11; Bergen-Belsen by the British on April 15; Dachau by the Americans on April 29; Ravensbrück by the Soviets on the same day; Mauthausen by the Americans on May 5; and Theresienstadt by the Soviets on May 8. Treblinka, Sobibór, and Bełżec were never liberated, but were destroyed by the Nazis in 1943. Colonel William W. Quinn of the U.S. 7th Army said of Dachau: "There our troops found sights, sounds, and stenches horrible beyond belief, cruelties so enormous as to be incomprehensible to the normal mind."
>You'd rather have your avionics run on C++?
Are you retarded?
Computers and software are major issue for F-22. While plane itself is still the besf fighter in the world... many of it's subsystems are seriously obsolete. Development of plane took so long that people that wrote the software for it retired before plane entered service. It's pretty hard find people that know old shit like ADA.
fighters can't just teleport from airstrip to the location where AWACS detected a threat.
In a typical wartime scenario you'd have some fighters dedicated to flying CAP around the AWACS, to prevent it from getting killed.
With long range anti-AWACS missiles in the picture, the area that these fighters need to cover becomes much larger. so you need more of them to cover the gaps. this ties up resources that could have been used elsewhere. It may become more practical to leave AWACS at home and accept the risk of reduced situational awareness.
3 things mainly:
1. You don't have to deflect them as much, meaning you're less likely to reflect radar back to something (your signature is more predictable).
2. You can potentially make those surfaces translucent to radar, because you don't have to worry about hiding rudder actuators, etc. Doesn't mean the whole thing will be translucent, but it means you can have more of it translucent.
3. You can maneuver better (mainly in yaw in this case) at supersonic speeds. Generally not important for rudders, but rudders can contribute to pitch and roll a bit.
The big negative to all-moving surfaces is that they're more maintenance hungry due to the extra forces at play and the size of their actuators (the size of which adds to the weight of the aircraft). You also forgo any opportunity to make your vertical stabilisers into fuel tanks (which the F-22 and F-35 do) and you make it harder / more maintenance heavy to have electronics (antennas, etc) in them.
very. less drag, more control authority, more stealth.
Are you retarded?
They weren't evil for "siding" with the USSR, they were wholesale conquered and had communist governments imposed on them by the Soviet Union. Literally puppet states.
Hence why when the Soviet Union weakened they all tossed aside their communist governments.
Technically the "death camps" were
Sobibor, treblinka, and belzec. All were in the eastern part, and were rapidly destroyed and demolished to hide evidence.
The rest were concentration camps. Technically the /pol/ poster is right if semantics are important.
Come on you retard.
No US inspected camp has had any facilities for "Extermination" but all Soviet camps had.
A most striking example is the camp of Auschwitz. The chimney of it's supposed gas chamber was constructed almost two years later. This is readily admitted by the staff manning the camp now. However when we take a look at the room they say was the "real" gas chamber. it seems to fall short on some logical things as well. The supposed holes in which the zyklon B pellets were thrown are all plugged seamlessly, they have been located apparently but no evidence of this exists. It is also located right next to the former SS hospital on a distance of ~75m. A rather strange place for a room where millions of bodies are brought in and out and which needs to vent thousands of kg in poison gas. In fact this place fits the description of an emergency shelter much more than a supposed gas chamber. http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fact/gaschambers.html Take a look at the "debunking" arguments. All of them are reliant on stupid assumptions and soviet provided evidence. Now obviously who to trust better than the "holodomor the ukies and rape the germans" soviets.
So the f22 was fitted with some handicapping device and not allowed to engage at bvr (what it supposedly excels at) and still managed to defeat the Rafale? That's pretty fucking crazy.
And every concentration camp had to engage in mass murder, obscenely horrific starvation practices, and theft of everything of worth the interred carried or had, including dental work and hair. You're not helping your case here.
1) the F-22 production was halted around 184 due to budget restraints. Production could be restarted if needed. Note that the US currently only has around 250 active service F-15's, with around 150 of those being National Guard. So having 184 Raptor's is a significant number.
2) the F-22 is faster and more maneuverable than pretty much every other fighter jet out there. Maybe the Su-35 is a bit more agile, but it's not nearly as fast. Typhoon and Rafale are decent, comparable maneuverability, but again, not in speed.
3) don't underestimate stealth capability. No, stealth is not invincible and infallible, but it's better than not having stealth. Detection is everything in modern warfare, and the F-22 has a huge advantage over other 4.5/5th gen aircraft in that department
4) yes, it lacks IRST and HMCS, but they are planned upgrades. They are planned upgrades (particularly the HMCS) for even the F-15, F-16, etc.
5) a close-range dogfight is literally the only situation where a fighter like a Rafale or Typhoon could compete. That oft-posted video clip of a Rafale getting a missile lock on an F-22 doesn't prove anything. Just because the F-22 isn't invincible, doesn't mean it's not still the best.
6) the main advantages of the F-22 aren't even the speed and maneuverability. The main advantages are its communications and detection. It acts as a force multiplier for allied aircraft.
7) the F-35 is going to come in at around half the cost of an F-22, with more capability in the sensors, command&control, communications, and avionics department. It sacrifices a bit in raw speed and maneuverability.
8) the F-35 isn't intended as a pure air superiority fighter like the F-22 is. So no, it's not as good at dogfighting. But It has better stealth, and a huge improvement in sensors and comms.
9) the F-35 has a marked increase in versatility and reliability.
Oh fuck off you retard. There were very few deaths in the beginning of the war and everyone and I mean EVERYONE died of starvation and disease in the later years. Besides how much are youg going to value anecdotal reports ? http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p161_Brech.html Are the murricans just as worse then ? OR ever worse because they did have the food readily available to feed these people. Also if you actually think they stole hair instead of trying to curb typhoid and what not by combating lice you might want to gas yourself buddy.
No they had not you fucking dipshit. They did some gruesome experiments there yes, but almost everyone who died there starved or died from disease. Even the inherently biased wikipedia page doesn't list it as a deathcamp. In fact I want to see your face when you read up on the Nurenberg trials, how the prosecutors there didn't need to provide evidence (actually stated in chapter 12 IIRC) and how those who followed orders are responsible as well (as opposed to their superiours, which is customary in all law). Then you can watch the clip of Göring I think in which he explains there was no Endlösung but a Gesamtlösung and the Madagascar solution and the Hess peace offer and suddenly those Nazis don't seem like bad guys.
>Production could be restarted
nope all the tooling was destroyed. it would take years and millions of dollars to restart
>the F-22 is faster
mach 2 is not that fast. many 3rd gen fighters can do that.
>there are planned upgrades
cancelled, no money
>the F-35 isn't intended as a pure air superiority fighter
but it will have to fill that role once all the f-15 rust away
That wasn't me, pic related, If I'd have known I would have replied to him too.
0.001 for F-35
0.0001 for F-22
0.25 for Rafale with SPECTRA.
Mind that 0.1 RCS is the goal. And since there were no propaganda articles about it you can safely assume that goal was not met yet.
>you can safely assume that goal was not met yet.
according to this leak the RCS goal was met.
since other posted numbers look reasonably realistic i'd say it's legit. mind you, this is with interim engines.
>posting meaningless numbers
the airplane is not a steel ball.
RCS is highly dependent on direction and frequency
>Photo taken so that shadow covers up the blades. Guess that means they're hidden! (Unless for whatever reason the aircraft turns towards the sun).
>Why are you trolling this?
I'm not trolling. Just stating the fact.
>You are wrong and you know you are wrong.
Concentration camps in Germany proper weren't extermination camps. Yes, people died in forced labor camps too, but not even close to same scale as in extermination camps.
>ADA is still widely used in aerospace, but there just aren't enough software engineers in aerospace.
ADA remains in use in aerospace and it's pretty much only industry using it. Finding programmers fluent in ADA is the problem as nobody outside of aerospace is using it.
Fuck off back to /pol/ with your holocaust denialism.
>Even the F-16 is on like Block 50 something.
Block 60 actually. Block numbers are rolling in ten at the time... but by just going by block number you skip Mid Life Upgrades, those are a major thing. Dutch block 20 F-16A's are probably more modern than most of USAF block 30 F-16C's.
>They specifically had facilities for killing and burning a lot of bodies there.
On scale much smaller than actual extermination camps set up entirely for killing people. All concentration camps encountered by western allies were labor camps or detention facilities for political dissidents.
The J-20 is sure a pretty amazing looking aircraft.
Together with the F-22 the best looking stealth fighter, while the T-50 looks like a glorified Su-27 and the F-35 with its fat sinle engine layout is just ugly.
>ADA remains in use in aerospace and it's pretty much only industry using it. Finding programmers fluent in ADA is the problem as nobody outside of aerospace is using it.
>Electrical engineering student
>took a random ADA class just for fun
>got headhunted two months before I finished my master
>see american military propaganda that even they admit is bullshit
>HURR MUST BE TRUE
go fucking read something idiot
Nothing "liberated" by the allies was a "death camp"
They found a number of jews dead of disease, which they piled up, and did some propaganda photos with.
Then they subsequently buried or burned them, because they are fucking disease hazards.
Camps other than aushwitz have VERY flimsy evidence/narratives.
The official story is that they buried a million bodies, then dug them up, and burnt them all in open pits... yet there is zero forensic evidence of any of that occuring.
They even produced a documentary about treblinka recently that was entirely a sham.
Why thats necessary if its a real thing, I don't know.
>Implying the Nazis didn't keep meticulous records of who was sent where, when they were killed and how, and what property was taken
>Implying you have any source that isn't a cherry-picking neo-nazi group
>nope all the tooling was destroyed. it would take years and millions of dollars to restart
The only plane this was done to was the F-14 because of Iran.
>mach 2 is not that fast. many 3rd gen fighters can do that.
And how long does it take them to get up to that speed with the drag of an external weapons load?
>cancelled, no money
What a funny way of saying 'currently being upgraded to block 3.2 with future upgrades in the chute'.
>but it will have to fill that role once all the f-15 rust away
That role will be filled by F-22s, which are nearly 1-1 with F-15Cs in numbers. Not that the F-35 would have a hard time doing that job if needed.
>Not that the F-35 would have a hard time doing that job if needed.
They would have a pretty hard time doing that job.
We are talking about a subsonic aircraft that would need to fight against supercruise capable enemies.
>nope all the tooling was destroyed. it would take years and millions of dollars to restart
I've seen this multiple times and I really must ask what sort of tooling does the F-22 require that couldn't be knocked out by a toolmaker in under a month?
Almost nobody can detect the F-35, it'll be able to carry 6 AIM-120Ds in the future, and at least 12 CUDAs once those come about. The question isn't "can the F-35 do air superiority if it needs to?" but "how devastating will it be?"
>No doubt the F-35 will be, when available, a very capable aircraft: its stealth design, extended range, internal carriage of stores and a variety of integrated sensors are definitely the ingredients for success in modern air-to-ground operations.
>However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky. And in that nothing comes close to a Typhoon, except an F-22 which has very similar values. The F-35 thrust to weight ratio is way lower and its energy-manoeuvrability diagrams match those of the F/A-18, which is an excellent result for a single engine aircraft loaded with several thousand pounds of fuel and significant armament.
>But it also means that starting from medium altitude and above, there is no story with a similarly loaded Typhoon.
>Transonic acceleration is excellent in the F-35, as it is for the Typhoon and better than in an F/A-18 or F-16, but mainly due to its low drag characteristics than to its powerplant. That means that immediately after the transonic regime, the F-35 would stop accelerating and struggle forever to reach a non operationally suitable Mach 1.6.
>The Typhoon will continue to accelerate supersonic with an impressive steady pull, giving more range to its BVR (Beyond Visual Range) armament.
>Angle-of-attack is remarkably high in the F-35, as it is for all the twin tailed aircraft, but of course it can not be exploited in the supersonic regime, where the limiting load factor is achieved at low values of AoA.
>Also in the subsonic regime, the angle-of-attack itself doesn’t mean that much, especially if past a modest 12° AoA you are literally going to fall of the sky! Excessive energy bleeding rates would operationally limit the F-35 well before its ultimate AoA is reached.
>Eurofighter superb engine-airframe matching, in combination with it’s High Off-Bore-Sight armament supported by Helmet Cueing, has already and consistently proven winning against any angile fighter.
>Last, the F-35 is capable of supersonic carriage of bombs in the bomb bay, but the fuel penalty becomes almost unaffordable, while delivery is limited to subsonic speeds by the armament itself as is for the Typhoon
> […] it is in the facts that while the Typhoon can do most of the F-35 air-to-ground mission, vice versa the F-35 remains way far from a true swing role capability, and not even talking of regulating the skies.
>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
>"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
>During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.
>Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
>Last, the F-35 is capable of supersonic carriage of bombs in the bomb bay, but the fuel penalty becomes almost unaffordable
>while delivery is limited to subsonic speeds by the armament itself as is for the Typhoon
Is this suggesting JDAMs can't be released at supersonic speeds? Because thats not.. true at all
>However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky
>Eurofighter superb engine-airframe matching, in combination with it’s High Off-Bore-Sight armament supported by Helmet Cueing, has already and consistently proven winning against any agile fighter.
>Talk about wing loading and manouverability
>Mention the one system that mostly invalidates that and how its very important
This whole thing sounds like bullshit
ADA is easier than C++ it is just more strict but writing something with ADA is faser than with anything else.
F-35 can only reach supersonic with its afterburner which makes supersonic carriage unaffordable
mfw some people still think that 'stealth' is real and the f35 isnt a total failure....
>mfw some people still think that 'stealth' is real and the f35 isnt a total failure....
I really wish that "F-35" rhymed with something so we could have a meme like "Can't stupify the F-35."
In what sense do you mean the F-22 is unproven? Sure, it's not got any real shoot down kills, but it's participated in every Red Flag since it went active and we've learned a lot about the platform, as well as how it deals with it's enemies. Knowing your aircraft's maneuvering capabilities is essential in a toe to toe, although not the first step to winning the fight. When our F22 went up against India's SU-27M's we found, they are doing quite well.
The SU-27M/30M's are just a hair above the F-15's/16's in the Block50 config. Even Russia, China, and etc's 5th Gen fighters are still quite the work in progress and aren't up to snuf yet with the F-22. Even so, what F-22's we have are already starting to see software and hardware upgrades. It isn't a static design. I can't discuss them for obvious reasons but even F-35 tech is working it's way into the F-22. The B model F-22 will incorporate quite a bit of cool features that would blow your mind.
Or the fact that most of these people don't really know what they are talking about.
I don't get how people are even calling designs like the F-22 old. Folk's need to learn how long the design process takes for any fighter. It's not a "hey we need a fighter" and pop one out in 2 years. The average is 10-15 years, and it's been getting longer as technology has become more design intensive. A 3rd gen fighter doesn't need half the design work, T&E, R&D that a 4th, 4.5 or 5th gen fighter needs.
>Glide bomb on a target 39km away
>Fly out, check target. Release weapon.
>Get changed, showered, go to the O club
>It's a text from my bomb! Looks like it hit.
>Anonymous Eurofighter pilot
>Knowing anything about the F-35
Here's a piece where an F-35 test pilot says the F-35 is a better plane than the Typhoon. Are we even now?
A-10 Thunderbolt II doesn't rhyme very well either, which is why the rhymes come from it's nickname.
Because the F-35's new it doesn't have a universal nickname like Viper or Mudhen or Rhino or Warthog, but so far VFA-101 (USN F-35C training squadron) have been calling it the Reaper.
I can't think of anything that rhymes with that either, but it would at least go with proverbs like 'can't cheat the Reaper'.
>the F-35 is capable of supersonic carriage of bombs in the bomb bay, but the fuel penalty becomes almost unaffordable, while delivery is limited to subsonic speeds by the armament itself as is for the Typhoon
It can drop bombs supersonic, the F-22 can do this as well
There's already a plane officially called Reaper, though.
Somewhat unrelated but also somewhat related.
Q&A with a retired pilot that flew both the A-10 and F-35.
And no, there is no condensed version/transcription so don't ask.
What is your point?
No one claimed that JDAM can't be released at supersonic speed. In fact that's one of the main selling points of supercruise capable aircraft like the F-22 or Eurofighter.
The J-20 is sure a fucking cool looking aircraft.
>F-35 can only reach supersonic with its afterburner which makes supersonic carriage unaffordable
Just like every other plane in service, except the F-22, while carrying a combat load.
None of the camps liberated by the allies in the West were the 'death' camps of fame, all of those were in the Eastern front.
It has nothing to do with Stormfront, but that makes a convenient handwave for you doesn't it.
>mfw when people who don't even hack high school physics come to tell us about stealth and how it is a fraud
Supercruise has existed since the 50s, it's not that surprising that the Eurofighter and the Gripen would be capable of it even with an external payload. It's obviously not going to be ass efficient as the F-22 with an internal payload but it's still definitely possible.
>Here's a piece where an F-35 test pilot says the F-35 is a better plane than the Typhoon.
no. he says the f-35 can go to edge of it's flight envelope with full internal load.
typhoon can't do that, but what he does not mention is that typhoon has a much larger flight envelope.
Pretty sure any jet with a T:W of ~1:1 can.
Can Typhoon do this?
Yes, but probably not as impressively.
The merit of supercruise is already questionable enough when you can do it at mach 1.7, given that it involves TWICE the fuel burn. If you can't even manage supercruise at mach 1.5, the number of realistic scenarios in which it might actually be useful drops from few to zero. The USAF discovered this decades ago with the F-106 (which was capable of marginal supercruise similarly to the modern Eurocanards), that's why they required the ATF to display near-Concorde-tier supercruise instead of just getting a cunthair past the sound barrier.
IMO it's all a waste of time, though. Even with the F-22's massive internal fuel capacity and impressive M1.8 supercruise, I STILL doubt they're going to be able to justify using the capability to any significant degree in practice.
What's so impressive about that? He lit his cans and started climbing at a high subsonic mach. Big fucking woop, any 4th gen and beyond can do that.
Can your eurocanard take off from gator-tops and share all its data with allied flights and operate in non-permissive environments?
F-35 is a twin-tail design which selling point is a high theoretical AoA in subsonic regime.
But the faster you are the center of mass moves more and more to the end of the aircraft aka the lever gets shorter and shorter.
The incredible maneuverability in transonic and supersonic regime is why people are designing aircraft with canards.
both rafale and typhoon have sensor fusion and datalinks.
the only really novel thing on f-35 is the distributed aperture IR.
but it's not like other aircraft can't be upgraded with it, if it turns out to be a killer feature.
PAK-FA will have a similar system but with two rotating apertures instead of six fixed ones