Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

[Optimist]

f-35 playing with Rafale, all show that rafale has a much greater playtime than F-35.

Typical BS with a similar a/g load..And have you ever heard of air refueling and that the F-35 can carry drop tanks and an increase in range with the new engine?

then you use journalist numbers about the RAAF, you know to be wrong...french are deceitful trolls

 

[Optimist]

the F-35A can go supersonic and then sustain mach 1.2 for 150 miles.

I saw conflicting sources about the 150 miles. It may be best to wait for further clarification

 

[Herciv]

Typical BS with a similar a/g load..And have you ever heard of air refueling and that the F-35 can carry drop tanks and an increase in range with the new engine?

I am reffering to very recent exercices in Australia.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Why? you are the one that is posting it.

Post number 4163 @BMD posted this, not me:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/f35a-capability-exceeds-expectations-as-full-operational-status-nears/news-story/34bed9dd782c20216f59185fc8f5cf57

 

[BMD]

A lot depends on the type of engagements practiced. But 20:1 isn't exactly bad.

 

[Rajput Lion]

A lot depends on the type of engagements practiced. But 20:1 isn't exactly bad.

Still no where near as impressive as Raptor's 144:1 ratio. Why am I saying this? Because @Innominate and several others believe F-35 to be as potent or even more potent air to air fighter than the Raptor. He previously stated that age of dogfights is over. It's all about stealth and sensors and F-35 prevails over all in that regards.


But the kill ratio is no where near Raptor's. So kinematics still matter @Innominate.

 

[BMD]

Still no where near as impressive as Raptor's 144:1 ratio. Why am I saying this? Because @Innominate and several others believe F-35 to be as potent or even more potent air to air fighter than the Raptor. He previously stated that age of dogfights is over. It's all about stealth and sensors and F-35 prevails over all in that regards.


But the kill ratio is no where near Raptor's. So kinematics still matter @Innominate.

But it depends on the type of engagements. I.e. a Raptor will likely have flown clean BVR missions a lot, as well as clean dogfighting. The F-35 may well have flown a lot of missions with external A2G wing loadings. The F-22 has flown training missions exclusively with the US, and this was an Australian test. Can one assume that Australian testing of a multi-role stealth fighter is the exact same as US testing of a stealth air superiority fighter?

Kinematics will matter in dogfight training, where the dogfight situation is contrived for the benefit of... well dogfight training. In real life the aim would be to avoid knife fights in either an F-22 or F-35.

All in the details:

Why did the F-22 achieve so much higher kill ratio than the F-35 in exercises like Red Flag and Northern Edge, while the F-35 is much mod...

Answer (1 of 8): There’s overall 3 reasons: 1. The F-35’s that participated during Red Flag 17–1 (and obtained 145 air-to-air kills with 7 losses) were Block 3i F-35As. This means that they were only capable (even with emulated weapons) of carrying 2x AMRAAMs in total; they couldn’t carry AIM-9X...

www.quora.com

Why did the F-22 achieve so much higher kill ratio than the F-35 in exercises like Red Flag and Northern Edge, while the F-35 is much mod...

James Smith's answer: There’s overall 3 reasons: 1. The F-35’s that participated during Red Flag 17–1 (and obtained 145 air-to-air kills with 7 losses) were Block 3i F-35As. This means that they were only capable (even with emulated weapons) of carrying 2x AMRAAMs in total; they couldn’t carry A...

qr.ae

There’s overall 3 reasons:

1. The F-35’s that participated during Red Flag 17–1 (and obtained 145 air-to-air kills with 7 losses) were Block 3i F-35As. This means that they were only capable (even with emulated weapons) of carrying 2x AMRAAMs in total; they couldn’t carry AIM-9Xs and they couldn’t use their gun. They also couldn’t pull more than 7Gs. When F-22’s participated in events like Northern Edge in 2007 and achieved a 144:0 kill ratio they had their full flight envelope and weapons load available to them.
2. At least some of the losses were caused by limitations of the training event - to simulate a larger adversary fighter fleet, the aggressor (red team) aircraft were allowed to respawn by flying back to certain waypoints. Because the F-35s were penetrating deep into enemy airspace, there were instances where an F-35 would shoot a bad guy, and be aware of where he was at all times, but the F-35 pilot would fail to realise that the enemy had reached their respawn point and was a threat again (with the enemy being potentially still within visual range). Obviously in the real world you don’t ignore an enemy until you know that they’re dead.
3. Red Flag 17–1 was described by officials as being tougher than any previous Red Flag, with more advanced air defences, and plenty of air threats (including F-15s equipped with AESAs that came to participate as part of Blue, but were switched over to Red for some days’ events).

In other training exercises, such as at Topgun and the USMC’s WTI course graduation event, F-35s have achieved 20:0, 24:0, etc kill ratios. F-35s have also participated in many Red Flags and Northern Edge exercises since Red Flag 17–1, but the USAF nor other services haven’t bothered publishing newer kill ratios because 17–1 was an exception, having been the first time USAF F-35As participated in the exercise. This is similar to why we haven’t heard about F-22 kill ratios in Red Flag in the past 15 or so years.

So, depending what event one takes, you could quote the F-35 kill ration as 20.7:1 or Infinity:1.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Still no where near as impressive as Raptor's 144:1 ratio. Why am I saying this? Because @Innominate and several others believe F-35 to be as potent or even more potent air to air fighter than the Raptor. He previously stated that age of dogfights is over. It's all about stealth and sensors and F-35 prevails over all in that regards.


But the kill ratio is no where near Raptor's. So kinematics still matter @Innominate.

Sweetie doesn't have a technical background so you can just as well ignore sweetie . When you asked why TopGun is still around , sweetie, true to form scrammed. It's another matter sweetie thinks whatever was shown in the climax of TopGun -2 was genuine as opposed to genuinely entertaining so much so that sweetie's forgotten the number of times sweetie's seen TopGun orgasming each time in the rear.

He's another of those read & dump members we have here . Zero tech analysis which need not be constrained by a lack of technical background but is usually a handicap as seen in sweetie's case.

Ask sweetie an out of syllabus question & sweetie'd disappear faster than you can bat your eyelids..

 

[randomradio]

Thing is, all this superlative kill ratio is achieved against US' own fighters. Until F-35 achieves something like 20:1 against Rafale in a BVR LFE, I ain't buying their superiority.

MKI UPG. is going to defeat VLO. I know you don't believe me because of MKI's barn door RCS. But still it would. Rafale, as our respected @vstol Jockey sir has previously said, is still good enough to deal with J-20.

As per an IAF Air Marshal, the Rafale is 200% superior to the MKI. So it should be a match for the F-35, as long as ACT keeps it hidden. In comparison, the MKI is 30% superior to the F-16B52.

Rafale's EW is great and everything, but it's still a defensive system.

 

[Rajput Lion]

As per an IAF Air Marshal, the Rafale is 200% superior to the MKI. So it should be a match for the F-35, as long as ACT keeps it hidden. In comparison, the MKI is 30% superior to the F-16B52.

Rafale's EW is great and everything, but it's still a defensive system.

Rafale has entered IAF service 18 years after MKI, so it better be that good. But post UPG. we shall see how well MKI does vis-a-vis Rafale and VLO jets.

Sweetie doesn't have a technical background so you can just as well ignore sweetie . When you asked why TopGun is still around , sweetie, true to form scrammed. It's another matter sweetie thinks whatever was shown in the climax of TopGun -2 was genuine as opposed to genuinely entertaining so much so that sweetie's forgotten the number of times sweetie's seen TopGun orgasming each time in the rear.

He's another of those read & dump members we have here . Zero tech analysis which need not be constrained by a lack of technical background but is usually a handicap as seen in sweetie's case.

Ask sweetie an out of syllabus question & sweetie'd disappear faster than you can bat your eyelids..

Ever since I asked him that Topgun question, his activity seems to have drastically reduced, lol.

@Innominate

Still awaiting my answer about when you're writing that public missive to US government asking them to shut down "Topgun", since as per you the age of dogfights is over

 

[randomradio]

No I am refering to playtime. How long can an f-35 play between Taïwan and Chinese coast compare to the chinese fighter.
All depend from where the f-35s can come from.
That's the first point
The second point all the last exercices with f-35 playing with Rafale, all show that rafale has a much greater playtime than F-35.
In fact look at the last article I have posted. Australian Air Force are not happy at all with the F-35 combat Range.
Don't forget that a part of the f-35 fuel can't be used for propulsion and is needed to refresh the plane. And that taken into account make the f-35 fuel volume under question.
Don't forget also that fighter combat under the sea is not the same that under earth. If you want to stay uncapture you have to fly under the horizon as most as possible.

When you say "playtime", I think you're referring to how long it can stay on-station. So that's endurance, ie, number of hours it can stay up in the air.

RAAF's problem with the F-35's combat range is different, it's not in comparison to the Rafale. Meaning, even the Rafale's range is not suitable for them.

Anyway, I was referring to a future F-35A with AETP, 30+% boost in range.

As for Taiwan, yeah, the time to battle area is very high, but they have to manage somehow. The F-35 has more range than the F-22 at least.

 

[randomradio]

I saw conflicting sources about the 150 miles. It may be best to wait for further clarification

Doesn't matter. It's not an operationally viable mode. The F-35A needs to go supersonic, then turn off AB and it sustains mach 1.2 for some time. That's not supercruise, nor is it useful.

So the only speeds that matter is the subsonic regime for missions and mach 1.6 dash speed to run away. Although I gotta say 90 seconds is a bit too less, it's just 50Km.

 

[randomradio]

Rafale has entered IAF service 18 years after MKI, so it better be that good. But post UPG. we shall see how well MKI does vis-a-vis Rafale and VLO jets.

Just some avionics doesn't create such a difference. It's the basic design of the airframe that brings out the difference.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Just some avionics doesn't create such a difference. It's the basic design of the airframe that brings out the difference.

True. But anything that carries its weapons externally can be detected through powerful sensors. The advantage of Flanker is powerful radar/EW pods/IRST that it can carry. If the new GaN based EW gives it EM immunity, then game is on.

Post upgrade any 4 or 4+ or 4++ gen fighter that carries its weapons outside and isn't full-on VLO is going to be in serious trouble against MKI. Against Stealth planes, in a dense environment, the new QWIP IRST would allow it to play games that no Flanker before it could have hoped to play.

 

[Herciv]

When you say "playtime", I think you're referring to how long it can stay on-station. So that's endurance, ie, number of hours it can stay up in the air.

Nope.
When you prepare a mission for a fighter, you have to give him a zone to play, a point to enter in this zone and a point to flight out. From the take-off to the enter point you have ingress, from the out point to the landing you have egress.
What I refer to playtime is the usefull time in the zone not the ingress or the egress time useless.

Chinese will have for example a huge advantage over US If f-35 have to come from GUAM or from the Phillipines. KC tanker can help to mitigate this problem of course but not totally by far.

For example IF US choose to have 2 F-35 over taïwan all the time during one month coming from Phillipines
That mean that they have to organize enough flight for 720 x 2 hours.

Flight from Phillipines is 40 min (600 km at 900 km/h), return the same, and I take one hour on station still at 900 km/h.
The playtime is 1 hour not 2h20.

And one such flight is 1/6 that a F-35A is able to flight per month today. To make such a mission with the actual avaibility of the F-35A you need 240 f-35A, not less.

Of course this is impossible because you also need KC tankers at each flight.

That's why I say that permanent aerial superiority is impossible over taïwan for the current block3F without a new engine. Permanent aerial superiority can not be obtain with F-35A. The only job that can be given to F-35A is SEAD/DEAD or RECO missions.

 

[Herciv]

Just to help about the use of fuel to mitigate the f-35 temperature :

https://imgur.com/Yn3OsaB

 

[_Anonymous_]

Nope.
When you prepare a mission for a fighter, you have to give him a zone to play, a point to enter in this zone and a point to flight out. From the take-off to the enter point you have ingress, from the out point to the landing you have egress.
What I refer to playtime is the usefull time in the zone not the ingress or the egress time useless.

Chinese will have for example a huge advantage over US If f-35 have to come from GUAM or from the Phillipines. KC tanker can help to mitigate this problem of course but not totally by far.

For example IF US choose to have 2 F-35 over taïwan all the time during one month coming from Phillipines
That mean that they have to organize enough flight for 720 x 2 hours.

Flight from Phillipines is 40 min (600 km at 900 km/h), return the same, and I take one hour on station still at 900 km/h.
The playtime is 1 hour not 2h20.

And one such flight is 1/6 that a F-35A is able to flight per month today. To make such a mission with the actual avaibility of the F-35A you need 240 f-35A, not less.

Of course this is impossible because you also need KC tankers at each flight.

That's why I say that permanent aerial superiority is impossible over taïwan for the current block3F without a new engine. Permanent aerial superiority can not be obtain with F-35A. The only job that can be given to F-35A is SEAD/DEAD or RECO missions.

Why does the US need to fly from Guam or Australia? They can do so from Japan and RoK (?) . The US will never enter this fracas without Japan in it. Not sure about RoK who may sit it out for if they enter, the DPRK would follow suit .

Ditto for Philippines. Theoretically the US can base it's Naval, AF & Submarine fleet there too but I doubt the Philippines would let it's bases be used during war time to stage raids against China. They'd simply be calling for retaliation by the Chinese something the opposition will pillory the government of the day for. The same would be true of other ASEAN States not well disposed to China like Vietnam.

This war is seen as existential by 3 parties namely China, obviously Taiwan & Japan who've rightly surmised that after Taiwan they're next in line. In any case if Taiwan falls & China aitomt overcomes the first island chain barrier it holds to ransom Japans future - it's exports & imports particularly energy imports.

If the US enters this war it'd be essentially to uphold it's paramount place in the world order but also to reign in China by backing Japan & Taiwan in their struggle against China & this would very much involve active Japanese participation in such a war with US armed forces being based in & operating out of Japan .

Shinzo Abe warns China: Taiwan invasion would be ‘economic suicide’ - Times of India

Rest of World News: The remarks by Abe, who stepped down as premier last year citing ill health, come after China sent a fresh sortie of warplanes toward Taiwan on Sunday

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The ASN4G will be "integrated on the NGF [new generation SCAF fighter aircraft] ten to fifteen years after it enters operational service under the F5 standard of the Rafale, which obliges us to demonstrate a certain level of ambition for this aircraft, so that its penetration capability remains credible, at least until 2060", explained Emmanuel Chiva, the "Délégué général pour l'armement" [DGA]

 

[Optimist]

Post number 4163 @BMD posted this, not me:

You are the one using f-22 144:1, which was their total, against a conservative 'more than' 20:1. The total number is out there, or quote the article properly
"The F-35 has been performing well against current legacy fighters such as the F-15 and F-16 in major international exercises – including a recent Red Flag in the US, where American F-35As claimed more than 20 aircraft “shot down” for every F-35 lost. In reality, this kill ratio is understood to be a great deal higher than publicly acknowledged."

 

[Innominate]

Rafale has entered IAF service 18 years after MKI, so it better be that good. But post UPG. we shall see how well MKI does vis-a-vis Rafale and VLO jets.

Ever since I asked him that Topgun question, his activity seems to have drastically reduced, lol.

@Innominate

Still awaiting my answer about when you're writing that public missive to US government asking them to shut down "Topgun", since as per you the age of dogfights is over

I don't like punching down.

I didn't answer the TopGun question because it was moronic which was not surprising to me that you asked it.

You see your TopGun question implies that you still think TopGun school is nothing but a dog fighting school and that everything else is secondary and that kind of thinking from you is primitive. But like I said that doesn't surprise me that it comes from you since you still live in a 'dog fighting is important world.' Primitive is your thinking but that can change quickly by researching what TopGun school is now... which is no different from Red Flag.