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

To remember :

Mirage III vs U-2
I was reminded of a flight, perhaps a record one, that I made in the 2nd EC, at Dijon on a Mirage III E equipped with the auxiliary rocket engine, where I climbed to ... 67,000 feet altimeter, in splendid weather (... and a very favourable tropopause because very high). Vertical to Dijon I could see Corsica and the curvature of the very dark horizon. It was in June 1967 when it was necessary to try at all costs to intercept and especially photograph the U-2 US which photographed our nuclear sites with impunity and officially denied these flights on our territory (... not seen, not taken. In fact one saw them very well with the radar).

The mission consisted, under very precise guidance of the DA controllers, to climb to the tropo (between 35 and 45.000 ft) then to accelerate to M 1.8, to light the SEPR rocket (2 possible ignitions of 80 seconds in total) and to climb at a high angle to iso-Mach 1.6 / 1.7 until extinction of the rocket engine towards 62 / 65.000 ft usually, and altitude where flew the U-2, while trying to hang on the radar the U-2, invisible at this altitude.

The difficulty of the mission was mainly for the controller, but at the time, those of the CAFDA and of the Dijon radar station were particularly trained and fast.

For the pilot, the difficulty was rather in the return, with a speed close to the stall when the PC was switched off and above all an oil always very short, added to the discomfort of the high altitude suit and in particular of the helmet with a little reduced visibility.

I had the chance to bring back the 1st picture (with a vulgar commercial camera with which we were equipped) of a U-2 ... that I almost "framed" by arriving by the back at M 1.7 whereas it flew at M 0.9 approximately and that I held the camera of the left hand while trying to put the U-2 in a very small optical viewfinder!

I think the U-2 pilot must have had a great shock, in every sense of the word, first from the sonic wave and then from the sight of that Mirage flush with his whiskers, popping up from behind him, even though his sensors had no doubt warned him of the approaching hostile.

I knew much later that this episode of interception with photo had greatly impressed and worried the Americans, who moreover suspended their pirate U-2 flights over France... to resume them later in SR-71 at M 3.0, at 75,000 ft and more... but that's another story!

Those were the good old days of "THE HUNT B...! "
 
Next one is coming by FLorida :
 
  • Informative
Reactions: BMD
The speed, climb, acceleration advantages are important. How else will you get into a firing position first or even escape missiles?
these advantages are advantages. But other advantage. If we continue to compare Rafale to Typhoon, Typhoon have better climb and acceleration. But... it is marginal. But Rafale have far better Radar and lower radar cross section. So the Rafale will obviously shoot first.
Let's focus now on F-35 (its the topic...) In front of a Typhoon (or a Rafale) it have very less climb rate, acceleration and cruise speed. But it have a very much lower RCS and very good sensors. So even with lower range of A2A missile, it still have an advantage.
Navies do not need high end performance. The MN could have been better served with a folding wing and more jets on the ship than a fixed wing with 9-11G performance. My point remains the same. Had the MN had, say, 3 carriers, and they needed 150-200 jets, then their own specific design would have been far better than the Rafale M.

Navies want multirole jets designed for ground strike
Navies need interceptors, and need also to get air superiority. During years, US navy had one of the best interceptor of the world, the F-14. It was not replaced due to the end of the cold war and the hope to see a replacment that never came. In France, we had F-8N Crusader for years, and the only reason why the F1 version of the Rafale exist, is because they have an urgent need to get a fighter able to perform interception and air superiority in order to protect both the carrier group and the assault strikes. In Russia, the carrier aircraft main role was to give air superiority in a zone. They don't even have any assault doctrine.

But I don't know for Indian Navy. at list I don't know how you can say that navies want multirole designed for ground strike. If you have source, i'll take them.
The F-35's new engine will provide up significant savings in fuel. Plus extra electrical power and thrust. Naturally other sorts of logistics advantages too. It's not a stretch to say the F-35's next engine will be two generations ahead of the M88-4E. The F135 is already a generation ahead in comparison.
Generation... I almost don't care. For me it is irrelevant. For me...
Payload can be subjected to even greater G forces depending on the type of payload. For example, AAMs can do 30-40G or even 100G. So it's not difficult to develop a bomb that can handle 9G. It's not a problem for the aircraft to achieve 9G, we already know that.
That's not the problem. The problem is that you cannot compare the weight of an A2A missile and a A2G bomb. The weight of a Sidewinder is 85kg an Amraam is 160kg. The weight of bombs start usualy at 250kg, 500 is common, and you have 1t and more.
if you have 6 A2A missiles (4Amraam and 2 Sidewinder), you have a payload of 810kg, load ballanced in 6 hardpoints. With 6 bombs of 250 on only 2hardpoints you have 1500kg. Now you take 9Gs. on each hardpoint you will have a mecanical effort of 1440kg. On a tribomb support, it will be 6800kg.
For the records, I never found a proof that the F-35 is certified for 9Gs with its bombs. And even if it is the case, the plane will losse its energy so fast that it will be eat by any oponent. So I really don't understand this advantage. But I have already said that.

There are two points being made here. F-35 has IWB, so the bomb doesn't need to be discarded when challenged, the aircraft can run away with full internal payload. Otoh, Rafale has to drop everything except AAMs before running away.
Already answered to that. I find this point really irrelevant.

This is a problem for all jets without IWBs. The second point is the F-35 can even get into a dog fight with a full payload, the Rafale can't.
Still not relevant. The Rafale will eat your F-35 at breakfast. Let keep it its bombs internally. Much more easy again to run after a fat boy.
So it can fight, it can run, it can reenter the fight again
No. If it run away, it have to accelerate at maximum and the plane will loose so much fuel that there is nothing else to do than to refuel. And because a strike have to be verry carrefully planned and synchronised with other fighter, you will not try again. War is not a video game.
, it can reenter the fight after refuelling again. The F-35's IWBs give the jet far too much operational flexibility.
I'm not agree. when you run away, you don't reentry in a fight. I never saw that in real operational life.
Otoh, the punishment for failure for Rafale is comparatively much higher, enough to create a generation difference.
The Rafale is able to defend itself. With 6 hammer bombs, it can also carry 6 A2A missiles to defend itself for long to short distance. F35 cannot with only 2 Amraam missiles and not Sidewinder (exept if you accept to loose your VLO caracteristics)...

By the way, I do consider some advantages of the Internal weapon bay. You have better drag (but more weight also), ability to get supersonic, and lower RCS. (in the big lines, because F-35 is not a real supersonic aircraft with only mach 1.2 sustainable for less than few minutes.
I haven't considered avionics in this discussion. My arguments were centered around physical characteristics that separates 4th gen from 5th gen. It's irrelevant even if the Rafale has better avionics, it will still have to drop its payload when challenged.
The point is you need to survive if you are discovered by any opponent.
Yes, F-35 have low RCS. But Rafale can launch cruise missiles at 500km of distance, so... Even the US navy consider that they prefer fighter with higher RCS but higly capable with long range stand-off weapon rather than a plane which need to get so closer from ennemy that it will become dangerous for itself.
 
Typhoon is a better air to air platform than Rafale. It flies higher, faster and has better turn rates at supersonic speeds(both ITR and STR). Plus it has 2-way data link for Meteor.
Like I said, with lower RCS and better Radar and situation awarness, The pilot of the Rafale will see the Typhoon and shoot to it at first.
In the fact the Typhoon does not flight higher than a Rafale. The missunderstanding come from the fact that in France, if you want to get higher you have to get a certification and your pilot need to have specific clothes. Thats why in the data sheet of the Rafale you will not find any max ceilling but an operationnal ceiling.
Rafale is able to cruse with one drop tank at mach 1.4. When you'll come face to face, the physical differences are in the margin.
That's why in so many exercises now, Rafale has proven its superiority in combat face to the Typhoon.
Typhoon has an advantage on paper when it have longer range A2A missiles with Amramm faced to Mica. But with meteor, there is no more advantage at all.
And I didn't even mention of electronic warfare suit...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante
Look at this another way.

Spy plane evolution:

WW1 - Observation balloon.
1950s - U2
1960s - SR-71
1980s - Aurora?
1990-2020 - Satellites
2023 - Observation balloon
If you weren't a Paddy your analysis would indicate that the WW-1 observation balloon didn't fly at 65000 ft + altitude whereas that's not the case today .
 
Like I said, with lower RCS and better Radar and situation awarness, The pilot of the Rafale will see the Typhoon and shoot to it at first.
In the fact the Typhoon does not flight higher than a Rafale. The missunderstanding come from the fact that in France, if you want to get higher you have to get a certification and your pilot need to have specific clothes. Thats why in the data sheet of the Rafale you will not find any max ceilling but an operationnal ceiling.
Rafale is able to cruse with one drop tank at mach 1.4. When you'll come face to face, the physical differences are in the margin.
That's why in so many exercises now, Rafale has proven its superiority in combat face to the Typhoon.
Typhoon has an advantage on paper when it have longer range A2A missiles with Amramm faced to Mica. But with meteor, there is no more advantage at all.
And I didn't even mention of electronic warfare suit...
As per Swiss evaluation, Rafale is indeed better than Typhoon on most parameters. But, if you look at pure kinematics, Typhoon is a pure beast, much more than Rafale.

Screenshot_20230205-225124_Chrome.jpg

Link of Swiss evaluation: https://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN
Here is a quote in regards to the F-35 which alludes to something groundbreaking utilizing meta materials. That was also 13 years ago. I’m under the assumption the term 6th Generation in regards to the b-21 is in part due to these advances put into the real world.

As a result, from the beginning of the F-35 program, Lockheed’s goal was to achieve acceptable stealth while reducing maintenance needs.In May of 2010, Tom Burbage, then executive vice president for the F-35 program, disclosed the incorporation of “fiber mat” technology, describing it as the biggest technical breakthrough they’ve had on F-35 program.The fiber mat would replace many RAM appliques by being cured into the composite skin, making it durable. Burbage further specified the mat featured a “non-directional weave” which would ensure EM properties do not vary with angle. Baked into the skin, this layer could vary in thickness as necessary. Lockheed declined to provide further details, citing classification. Without further evidence, fiber mat would imply the use of fibers, rather than particles, which would make for stronger surfaces and the word “conductive” points to carbon-based RAM. That wasn’t the first time it is hinted that F-35 has a unique kind of RAM. One month before Burbage’s disclosure, Lockheed filed a patent claiming the first method of producing a durable RAM panel. The patent details a method for growing carbon nanotubes (CNT) on any kind of fiber—glass, carbon, ceramic or metal with unprecedented precision in control of length, density, a number of walls, connectivity, and even orientation. The CNT-infused fibers can absorb or reflect radar, and connectivity among the CNTs provides pathways for induced currents. Moreover, the CNTs can be impregnated with iron or ferrite nanoparticles. Fibers can have differing CNT densities along their lengths and homogenous fibers can be layered or mixed. The embodiments described include front layers with impedance matching air, use of quarter-wavelength depths for cancellation, stepped or continuous CNT-density gradients and continuously varying densities at specific depths for broadband absorption. The fibers can be disposed with “random orientation” in materials including “a woven fabric, a non-woven fiber mat and a fiber ply.”.The patent claims composites with CNT-infused fibers are capable of absorbing EM waves from 0.1 MHz to 60 GHz with particular effectiveness in L- through K-band.That is a bandwidth unheard of commercial radar absorbing material before. The patent does not quantify the absorptivity, but does say the panels would be “nearly a black body across . . . various radar bands.” Also, interestingly, a layer can be composed so an attached computer can read the induced currents in the fibers, making the layer a radar receiver.While the patent mentions stealth aircraft, it does not mention the F-35 specifically, and the manufacturing readiness level of the material at the time it was granted is not known. But the proximity in timing and technology of the filing to the “fiber mat” disclosure is hard to ignore.
 
Here is a quote in regards to the F-35 which alludes to something groundbreaking utilizing meta materials. That was also 13 years ago. I’m under the assumption the term 6th Generation in regards to the b-21 is in part due to these advances put into the real world.

As a result, from the beginning of the F-35 program, Lockheed’s goal was to achieve acceptable stealth while reducing maintenance needs.In May of 2010, Tom Burbage, then executive vice president for the F-35 program, disclosed the incorporation of “fiber mat” technology, describing it as the biggest technical breakthrough they’ve had on F-35 program.The fiber mat would replace many RAM appliques by being cured into the composite skin, making it durable. Burbage further specified the mat featured a “non-directional weave” which would ensure EM properties do not vary with angle. Baked into the skin, this layer could vary in thickness as necessary. Lockheed declined to provide further details, citing classification. Without further evidence, fiber mat would imply the use of fibers, rather than particles, which would make for stronger surfaces and the word “conductive” points to carbon-based RAM. That wasn’t the first time it is hinted that F-35 has a unique kind of RAM. One month before Burbage’s disclosure, Lockheed filed a patent claiming the first method of producing a durable RAM panel. The patent details a method for growing carbon nanotubes (CNT) on any kind of fiber—glass, carbon, ceramic or metal with unprecedented precision in control of length, density, a number of walls, connectivity, and even orientation. The CNT-infused fibers can absorb or reflect radar, and connectivity among the CNTs provides pathways for induced currents. Moreover, the CNTs can be impregnated with iron or ferrite nanoparticles. Fibers can have differing CNT densities along their lengths and homogenous fibers can be layered or mixed. The embodiments described include front layers with impedance matching air, use of quarter-wavelength depths for cancellation, stepped or continuous CNT-density gradients and continuously varying densities at specific depths for broadband absorption. The fibers can be disposed with “random orientation” in materials including “a woven fabric, a non-woven fiber mat and a fiber ply.”.The patent claims composites with CNT-infused fibers are capable of absorbing EM waves from 0.1 MHz to 60 GHz with particular effectiveness in L- through K-band.That is a bandwidth unheard of commercial radar absorbing material before. The patent does not quantify the absorptivity, but does say the panels would be “nearly a black body across . . . various radar bands.” Also, interestingly, a layer can be composed so an attached computer can read the induced currents in the fibers, making the layer a radar receiver.While the patent mentions stealth aircraft, it does not mention the F-35 specifically, and the manufacturing readiness level of the material at the time it was granted is not known. But the proximity in timing and technology of the filing to the “fiber mat” disclosure is hard to ignore.
That's all very impressive Paddy. I'm sure surprised LM guys weren't nominated for their Nobel in which ever category it falls. In the real world however for every flight hour the F-35 puts in it's immediately grounded for maintenance lasting days. The LM recommends more time on simulator based training than on the F-35. I've read in a tweet some time back the ratio is as high as 10:1. Besides the F-35 is yet to receive FOC so all this talk of how good it is remains premature.

With respect to the B-21 wasn't there talk that from the earlier no escorts required for the B-21s it's come down to escorts would be required to punch a hole in the enemy's armour before the B-21s work their magic whatever it is.

Besides we've the example of the intensive maintenance the F-22 requires for every hour of flight it puts in burning a hole in the OpEx budget of the USAF so much so that they're looking forward to the NGAD & what's more they said no to any revolutionary tech given their past experience.

How do you explain all this if we go by the axiom the proof of the pudding lies in its eating ,why shouldn't we see this as another example of the Paddyfication of the West especially the Anglos.
 
these advantages are advantages. But other advantage. If we continue to compare Rafale to Typhoon, Typhoon have better climb and acceleration. But... it is marginal. But Rafale have far better Radar and lower radar cross section. So the Rafale will obviously shoot first.
Let's focus now on F-35 (its the topic...) In front of a Typhoon (or a Rafale) it have very less climb rate, acceleration and cruise speed. But it have a very much lower RCS and very good sensors. So even with lower range of A2A missile, it still have an advantage.

The advantage was enough for the IAF to rate it higher than the Rafale in MMRCA.

Navies need interceptors, and need also to get air superiority. During years, US navy had one of the best interceptor of the world, the F-14. It was not replaced due to the end of the cold war and the hope to see a replacment that never came. In France, we had F-8N Crusader for years, and the only reason why the F1 version of the Rafale exist, is because they have an urgent need to get a fighter able to perform interception and air superiority in order to protect both the carrier group and the assault strikes. In Russia, the carrier aircraft main role was to give air superiority in a zone. They don't even have any assault doctrine.

But I don't know for Indian Navy. at list I don't know how you can say that navies want multirole designed for ground strike. If you have source, i'll take them.

The F-14 was introduced to stop Soviet bombers. Then the carrier mission changed, so they also changed the aircraft.

Just look up what sort of requirements carrier navies have today, and it will make more sense. Even future carrier jets are being designed to be more strike heavy than performance heavy; F/A-XX, TEDBF, J-31...

The Russians have a completely different requirement. Their doctrine is about sea denial.

Generation... I almost don't care. For me it is irrelevant. For me...

It matters to everybody else though.

That's not the problem. The problem is that you cannot compare the weight of an A2A missile and a A2G bomb. The weight of a Sidewinder is 85kg an Amraam is 160kg. The weight of bombs start usualy at 250kg, 500 is common, and you have 1t and more.
if you have 6 A2A missiles (4Amraam and 2 Sidewinder), you have a payload of 810kg, load ballanced in 6 hardpoints. With 6 bombs of 250 on only 2hardpoints you have 1500kg. Now you take 9Gs. on each hardpoint you will have a mecanical effort of 1440kg. On a tribomb support, it will be 6800kg.
For the records, I never found a proof that the F-35 is certified for 9Gs with its bombs. And even if it is the case, the plane will losse its energy so fast that it will be eat by any oponent. So I really don't understand this advantage. But I have already said that.

Weight is irrelevant here. The F-35 weighs 25T with full load, at 9G that's 225T. So the bomb weight will also increase relatively.

9G performance is necessary to fight, the F-35 can fight, 4th gen designs cannot without dropping payload. Even 7G gives the F-35 the advantage over the Rafale's 5.5G.

Already answered to that. I find this point really irrelevant.

What do you mean? It's the most important criteria for failed strike missions for air forces all over the world.

Do you realise how many aircraft are necessary to challenge just 1 F-35 strike group when it has the ability to return in the same sortie? Most 4th gen designs will be completely useless against the F-35A, with the new engine especially.

I'm not agree. when you run away, you don't reentry in a fight. I never saw that in real operational life.

That's 'cause 4th gen cannot. They have to RTB after dropping payload. The F-35 can return because it's still carrying bombs. The point is the F-35 will never lose its bombs no matter what.

By the way, I do consider some advantages of the Internal weapon bay. You have better drag (but more weight also), ability to get supersonic, and lower RCS. (in the big lines, because F-35 is not a real supersonic aircraft with only mach 1.2 sustainable for less than few minutes.

Still irrelevant. The F-35 can still do 400Kmph more than the Rafale with large payload, that's far more relevant.

The point is you need to survive if you are discovered by any opponent.
Yes, F-35 have low RCS. But Rafale can launch cruise missiles at 500km of distance, so... Even the US navy consider that they prefer fighter with higher RCS but higly capable with long range stand-off weapon rather than a plane which need to get so closer from ennemy that it will become dangerous for itself.

You are all over the place. If you are relying on a 500Km missile, then why care about fighter jets, just buy a bomber and fire away, like the Russians.

I don't think you have understood what's being discussed here.
 
Typhoon is a better air to air platform than Rafale. It flies higher, faster and has better turn rates at supersonic speeds(both ITR and STR). Plus it has 2-way data link for Meteor.
RAF decided to stop to train against Rafale for years because their EF2000 were systematically outclassed in AtoA.
2 way Meteor datalink : If I remember well Rafale is also fitted with now.
The F-35 is indeed better than the Rafale on paper, but is yet to finish development.
It is this paper F35 that won with a tiny gap against real life Rafale in Netherlands. This paper F35 was supercruising. At least one promise never kept. Why not others ?
 
RAF decided to stop to train against Rafale for years because their EF2000 were systematically outclassed in AtoA.
2 way Meteor datalink : If I remember well Rafale is also fitted with now.
I am basing my post on Swiss evaluation. It has nothing to do with exercise results. But kinematics of Typhoon is superior to Rafale, is a well know fact among aviation enthusiasts.
It is this paper F35 that won with a tiny gap against real life Rafale in Netherlands. This paper F35 was supercruising. At least one promise never kept. Why not others ?
F-35 bested Rafale in latest Swiss report as well.
 
Here is a quote in regards to the F-35 which alludes to something groundbreaking utilizing meta materials. That was also 13 years ago. I’m under the assumption the term 6th Generation in regards to the b-21 is in part due to these advances put into the real world.
The difference back then, was that CNT wasn't approved for load bearing structures. That has changed and it can be used in more places than the skin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD