57 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

It's multi-role. It's actually not designed to be really best-suited for anything. It is designed to be more capable of fulfiling a strike role than a normal fighter, and has the electro-optical targeting system under the nose for exactly that purpose, but has a very capable radar and a stealth design that serve it very well in air combat as well. The reason its being used mostly for dropping bombs is because the U.S. already has the F-22 for the primary anti-air role, not because it's incapable of aerial combat.

[Eddy01741]

CommanderJB, on 26 Jun 2008, 20:02, said:

CommanderJB, on 28 May 2008, 13:28, said:

But then that's not even a Gatling/mini-gun. Still cool though.

Well, I actually did, although I didn't actually state the difference, it is true. Also, that thing about the F-15 having a perfect kill ratio being invincible is frankly deceptive selection of information and really an American propaganda myth if ever there was one. Half the kills come from Israeli pilots shooting down Floggers and other outdated Syrian/Egyptian/etc. aircraft that they bought from Russia twenty years previously and probably didn't maintain very well. About the only kills of equivalent aircraft come from Desert Storm, and the Iraqis had been denied access to training and spare parts by Russia for decades. Meanwhile, something like half a dozen F-15E Strike Eagles were downed by Iraqi AAA. Just because they're not the air superiirty version doesn't mean you can just discount their losses, and a MiG-29 may have shot one down over Yugoslavia in 1991 as well.
Edit - but of course I do totally agree that the F-22 is superior in just about every way, though it costs so much more that the U.S. is only fielding about 150 of them, compared to something like 3000 F-35s.

Yeah, I know, its just american propaganda for the less educated masses. Basically, it's like saying in the first gulf war that the abrams destroyed over a thousand enemy tanks with almost no losses of their own, w/o mentioning that the enemy tanks were mostly T-55s and T-62s, and some T-72s, which were almost all commanded by sub-par troops. So yeah, basically the combat record for the F-15 is against sub-par airforces flying obsolete planes, but I'm just stating the F-15's purpose (destroying enemy planes), which is similar to that of the F-22. I'm sure a well piloted (with maybe updated electronics or something) Mig-29 or Su-27 could fight evenly with the F-15.

[The Wandering Jew]

I'm confused.

Where am I? I thought I was in F-22 vs. F-35. Why are there guns vs. missiles here? :stickattack2:

[Lucid]

I can describe the F35 with one of my favorite phrases: Jack of all trades, master of none.

personally i think that the money used in building the F-22 could be better used to upgrade the current F15s and F16s.

[Razven]

Let's say it's a F-22 against a F-35A (non-VTOL/non-Carrier version). In a head-on situation, given that both are piloted by pilots of the same skill.

If
1) Armed with the same missile:
Then it's just a matter of who can dodge the enemy missile, in which the F-22 has superior maneuvrability. The F-35A has 2 internal missile (AIM-120s) anti-air missiles (external ones don't count on account for stealthiness) The F-22 on an Air-to-air loadout has 6 long range AIM-120 Slammers and 2 closer-ranged AIM-9 Sidewinders. So the F-35 will have potentially more missiles flying after it, both at long and short range.

2) Dogfight (assuming all missiles have been expended):
The F-35 uses GAU-22/A 25mm cannon with 180 rounds (round classed to be harder hitting than the M61)
The F-22 has the M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon, with 480 rounds (approx 5 sec. burst, 1 sec. should result in a kill if all shots hit)
If the F-35 can get a perfect shot off with it's gun, then the F-22 will be dead. But given that the F-22 has comparatively more ammo and better manoverability, the F-22 has a higher chance of winning. But my bet is that both run out of ammo and fly back to base.

[Eddy01741]

Okay, if a missile is locked on you and fired, your as good as dead, flares and chaff, they don't do all that great of a job. A missile can pul 10+Gs, humans can barely sustain 9 gs, and not for long before a g-lock (blackout). Even the F-22s manuverability (it's not that manuverable, it's just rediculously fast at rolling) won't hlp much at all, on the other hand, the stealth will help, in that it'll be harder to lock on to the F-22 giving it the advantage. If it's a dogfight with guns... well, i'd say that'd almost never happen, but with the F-22's superior manuverability, it'd have the advantage, even if the F-35 got on its six, the F-22 is faster and accelerates faster than the F-35, so it could get out of range before coming back for a pass. So basically, the F-22 would win that one too.

[DerKrieger]

CommanderJB, on 27 Jun 2008, 1:02, said:

CommanderJB, on 28 May 2008, 13:28, said:

But then that's not even a Gatling/mini-gun. Still cool though.

Well, I actually did, although I didn't actually state the difference, it is true. Also, that thing about the F-15 having a perfect kill ratio being invincible is frankly deceptive selection of information and really an American propaganda myth if ever there was one. Half the kills come from Israeli pilots shooting down Floggers and other outdated Syrian/Egyptian/etc. aircraft that they bought from Russia twenty years previously and probably didn't maintain very well. About the only kills of equivalent aircraft come from Desert Storm, and the Iraqis had been denied access to training and spare parts by Russia for decades. Meanwhile, something like half a dozen F-15E Strike Eagles were downed by Iraqi AAA. Just because they're not the air superiirty version doesn't mean you can just discount their losses, and a MiG-29 may have shot one down over Yugoslavia in 1991 as well.
Edit - but of course I do totally agree that the F-22 is superior in just about every way, though it costs so much more that the U.S. is only fielding about 150 of them, compared to something like 3000 F-35s.

Only 3 F-15Es were shot down. There was also an incident where a Japanese F-15 accidentally shot down another Japanese F-15 in 1995.

The F-22 wouldn't be as expensive if production was streamlined (costs depreciate as production increases)- as of now there's really no reason for the Air Force to buy hundreds of air superiority fighters.

[The Wandering Jew]

DerKrieger, on 29 Jun 2008, 14:36, said:

Only 3 F-15Es were shot down. There was also an incident where a Japanese F-15 accidentally shot down another Japanese F-15 in 1995.

The F-22 wouldn't be as expensive if production was streamlined (costs depreciate as production increases)- as of now there's really no reason for the Air Force to buy hundreds of air superiority fighters.

Because there is no large-scale war.

.