F-22 or F-35? you decide!!

[Navy1960]

The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Program partner Boeing Integrated Defense Systems provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and all of the pilot and maintenance training systems.

In April 2006, the cost of the F-22 was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft

F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a fifth-generation, single-seat, single-engine, stealth-capable military strike fighter, a multirole aircraft that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions.[5] The F-35 has three different models; one is the conventional takeoff and landing variant, the second is short takeoff and vertical-landing variant, and the third is a carrier-based variant.

The F-35 is descended from the X-35, the product of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Its development is being principally funded by the United States, with the United Kingdom, and other partner governments providing additional funding.[6] It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems as major partners.[6] Demonstrator aircraft flew in 2000,[7] with the first flight on 15 December 2006.[8]

Concerns about the F-35's performance have resulted partially from reports of RAND simulations where numerous Russian Sukhoi fighters defeat a handful of F-35s by denying tanker refueling.[47] As a result of these issues the then-Australian defence minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, requested a formal briefing from the Department of Defence (Australia) on the computer simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate, and that it did not compare the F-35's performance against that of other aircraft.[48]

The criticism of the F-35 has been dismissed by the Pentagon and manufacturer.[47][49] The USAF has conducted an analysis of the F-35's air-to-air performance against all 4th generation fighter aircraft currently available, and has found the F-35 to be at least four times more effective. Maj Gen Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".[49] The Russian, Indian, Chinese, and other air forces operate Sukhoi Su-27/30 fighters.

The F-35 will have a helmet mounted cueing system similar to the system already in service with the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s,[50] the AN/AAQ-37 Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System that "renders maneuverability irrelevant",[51] and improved data processors.[52] Lockheed Martin claims the F-35 will have turning agility/ability of up to 9 g's and provide close-in or long-range air-to-air combat capability second only to the F-22 Raptor, and superior to all other fighters.[
F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While these two aircraft are good examples of the best American Aviation has to offer, it must be said that the current debate over the F-22 is one that does not take into consideration of actual roles. The F-22 is a pure air-to-air fighter aircraft which does have air to ground capability , but it is UNMATCHED in capability when it comes to all around performace. The F-35 is a completly different aircraft and it's mission is more akin to a fighter bomber much along the lines of a F-18 , it has good performance in the air to air role but that is NOT it's primary role. Now while it is my opnion that the USAF should be allowed to purchase whatever the mission calls for, the solution here on an economic level seems to be a simple one. Lift the ban on exports on the F-22 and that would result in around 120 more aircraft by foreign buyers such as Aus. and Japan which makes good strategic sense and also good economic sense for this nation. It will also allow the line to remain open should the USAF wish to revist more F-22's should a need arise through attrition without the need to spend billions of dollars to restart the line. In the mean time the DoD can concentrate on the F-35 and finally get this aircraft to the warfighters.

 

[Harry Dresden]

just saw a show on this on the military channel,about the top 10 fighter jets of the world....they had 3 "experts" on and they all seemed to agree that the Raptor,which was no.1 is the best jet ever and is so much more advanced than anything out there in air combat that they do not think anyone will try to top it.... it is just to expensive to try....they seemed to think the new wave of jets will be advanced drones...with fighter jet capabilities....

 

[DiveCon]

i've always felt that they made too many compromises on the F-35 to make it fit so many mission roles
while the F-22 fully does the role it was designed for

 

[Navy1960]

My firm recenlty did a write up on the F-22 Harry and the conclusion has always been the same. The aircraft is superior in all phases of performance. However it's a belief among the aviation community that this aircraft represents one of the last manned pure fighter aircraft and the 6th generation will be or at least some will be unmanned. It's also my belief that the aircraft line can be kept open if the ban on exports is lifted or a partial ban is placed on its sale to approved nations.

 

[Navy1960]

Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, said he would not dispute a characterization that over the coming three years the service was seeking to add 60 of the premier fighter jets to the 183 now on order, for a total of 243.

The revised request would be for a fleet totaling fewer than 381 Raptors, the previous Air Force goal, Schwartz told reporters, without disclosing the new number.

The Air Force once sought to buy as many as 750 F-22s, which it reckoned cost about $142 million apiece in fiscal 2008, not including development costs.

The revised requirement is "driven by analysis as opposed to some other formulation," Schwartz said. "And I think it will withstand scrutiny."

The administration must make critical decisions about the F-22 by about March 1 or Lockheed Martin says it will start phasing out the production line, threatening tens of thousands of jobs during the current recession.

Schwartz said he expects to present the Air Force's new F-22 analysis to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates within a few weeks. He said the analysis did not factor in jobs, which he called the responsibility of other U.S. officials.

Pressed on why the Air Force was giving up on the 381 F-22s it had long stated it needed to make sure it could dominate the skies from Day One of any future major conflict, Schwartz spoke of going from a "low risk" to a "moderate risk" number.


I heard this same thing when congress was trying to kill the F-15 and F-16 as well as cut back on production because the F-4 was good enough and we have all seen the results of purchasing those aircraft as well as the F=18. This is nothing new in defense spending when it comes to aircraft what is new that if the F-22 is stopped we will for the first time in a very long time as a nation give up on what is the worlds best air to air fighter. The Navy now is totally reliant on the the F-18 airframe for it's needs when it comes to air to air missions and air to gound mission and with Russian advances in the SU-37 and its proven ability vs. the F-15C and the F-18 to limit capability of this vital asset seems rather short sighted. However, as stated earlier if the Govt. wishes to save the taxpayers money here lift the export ban all that takes is the stroke of a pen

 

[Xenophon]

I would rather have F 22s.

This same argument was made about F 15s years ago, that it was not multi role and was a pure air fighter. Eventually they upgraded the Eagle to air to ground missions.

 

[Dayton3]

The F-22 would be the superior option for the United States Air Force.

But, the Navy and Marine Corps not to mention the British and Australians also need the F-35.

Build them both. The more the better.

And in regards to unmanned drones.

Not a chance.

No one is going to give drones the power to launch attacks on their own.

And in any kind of major war, remote control of drones can be jammed.

 

[Terry]

F-22 baby, they rock! I see them fly around in the sky's over Langley AFB and man are they a sight to watch.

 

[DiveCon]

The F-22 would be the superior option for the United States Air Force.

But, the Navy and Marine Corps not to mention the British and Australians also need the F-35.

Build them both. The more the better.

And in regards to unmanned drones.

Not a chance.

No one is going to give drones the power to launch attacks on their own.

And in any kind of major war, remote control of drones can be jammed.

the F-35 has too many missions and doesnt do any of them as well as they could if they built two other planes
they are trying to replace too many airframes/missions with one

 

[Toome]

Until I saw the F-22 at an air show recently, I thought the F-16 was a highly maneuverable aircraft. One of the F-16 Viper's most impressive features was its capability turn around 180 degrees in a very tight circle.

The F-22 made the F-16 look like a crop duster.

The problem with fighter-bombers is that they sacrifice maneuverability for delivery. They can carry bombs, but they're slow to turn compared to modern fighters. When it comes to dog fights, US pilots deserve aircraft that can outmaneuver opponents. We have plenty of bombers and other capabilities to deliver munitions to ground targets. They need to be escorted by highly maneuverable and highly combat-effective fighters.

Even though obsolete by modern standards, my favorite will always be the F-14 Tomcat.

 

[Navy1960]

In regards to the assertion of unmanned UCAV's i invite you to look at the following;

The Boeing joint unmanned combat air system X-45 is an unmanned combat air vehicle being developed for strike missions such as Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD), electronic warfare and associated operations.

The Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) programme began being managed by DARPA, but was handed over to a joint US Navy and Air Force office in October 2005. The two principle systems being developed under the first phase of the programme, the Spiral 0 phase, are the Boeing X-45 and the Northrop Grumman X-47. The J-UCAS program combines the programmes previously conducted under the DARPA, USAF and Boeing X-45 UCAV program and the DARPA, USN and Northrop Grumman X-47 UCAV-N program.

"The Boeing
joint unmanned combat air system X-45 is an unmanned combat air vehicle."In March 2004, the X-45A completed a ten-day schedule of test flights including dropping a 250lb inert Small Smart Bomb (SSB) at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California. The X-45A air vehicle released the unguided weapon from its internal weapon bay at an altitude of 35,000ft and speed Mach 0.67 (about 442mph). In August 2004, the first test of multi-vehicle operations took place. Two X-45A demonstrators were controlled by a single operator / pilot. X-45A flight tests were successfully concluded in August 2005.

X-45 J-UCAV Joint Unmanned Combat Air System - Air Force Technology

I'm afriad with the advent of systems like the Predator and many others that now carry weapons systems, unmanned UAV's especially UCAV's are the order of the day. However the assertion on the F-35 and F-22 is very correct and the original intent of these systems was to have them built together as they both have roles to fill. While it is true that the F-15A eventually led to the F-15E Strike Eagle there is a massive difference between the two ariframes, the F-15 had the capability to carry weapon(s) stores on wing pods whereas the F-22 cannot and will never, because once done it will destroy the basic premise of the airframe and that is it's stealth properties. There is however an upgrade at this moment for the F-22 that is enhancing it's ground attack capabilities through a series weapons upgrades that fit in it's internal weapons bay. The one variant of the F-35 that I personally see as the most promising is the Marine Corps variant because it will not only replace the AV8B but also the F-18 which and do so by not giving up any performance. The Navy with the advent of the F-18 Super Hornet only need to enhance it's ground attack capabilities and mission penetration capabilites and the F-35 is a good aircraft to fill this role. However when it comes to pure air superiority the Air Force needs to have an aircraft that fills this role and that role is clearly filled by the F-22. So I have suggested that the DoD listen to the Air Force and NOT a political appointee and purchase what it needs to fill that role or if they cannot at this time keep the line open by lifting the ban to freindly nations who want to buy the aircraft.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The F-22 would be the superior option for the United States Air Force.

But, the Navy and Marine Corps not to mention the British and Australians also need the F-35.

Build them both. The more the better.

And in regards to unmanned drones.

Not a chance.

No one is going to give drones the power to launch attacks on their own.

And in any kind of major war, remote control of drones can be jammed.

not according to what i saw on the military channel....its a very real scenario...and the drones are not on their own....someone is controlling them and see's what they see...and anti-jamming devices have been in the works since the first generation of drones.....according to the guy from Janes mag......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Until I saw the F-22 at an air show recently, I thought the F-16 was a highly maneuverable aircraft. One of the F-16 Viper's most impressive features was its capability turn around 180 degrees in a very tight circle.

The F-22 made the F-16 look like a crop duster.

The problem with fighter-bombers is that they sacrifice maneuverability for delivery. They can carry bombs, but they're slow to turn compared to modern fighters. When it comes to dog fights, US pilots deserve aircraft that can outmaneuver opponents. We have plenty of bombers and other capabilities to deliver munitions to ground targets. They need to be escorted by highly maneuverable and highly combat-effective fighters.

Even though obsolete by modern standards, my favorite will always be the F-14 Tomcat.

according to the guy from Janes,the Raptor in his and he said many others opinion,this machine is maybe 10-15 years ahead of what anyone has out there.... this jet will already do its damage before the other jets have time to react....but its just two expensive for say Russia to try and top...so they say advanced drones will be the future of fighters.....

 

[Navy1960]

FORT WORTH, Texas, March 19th, 2009 --
High Resolution Photo

U.S. Marine Corps pilot Maj. Joseph T. Bachmann became the first Marine to fly the F-35 Lightning II, on March 19, 2009. (Photo by Tom Harvey, Lockheed Martin)

High Resolution Photo

With U.S. Marine Corps pilot Maj. Joseph T. Bachmann at the controls, the F-35 Lightning II lifts off from the runway at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 19. Bachmann became the first Marine to fly the F-35, which will enter operational service with the Corps in 2012.

Bachmann departed the runway at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant at 11:29 a.m. CDT and flew the aircraft to 15,000 feet, checking handling qualities and engine response before landing one hour and 15 minutes later.

"The plane performed wonderfully," said Bachmann, a member of the F-35 Integrated Test Force and one of the team test pilots who will fly the F-35B Lightning II at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., test site, beginning this summer. "The U.S. Marine Corps will be getting an aircraft with extraordinary capabilities that is very easy to fly. Today is another step toward delivery of the first jets to Marines on the front line."
First U.S. Marine Pilots Lockheed Martin F-35 | Lockheed Martin

The most senior retired military officer to back President Obama's run for the White House says the president is making a "real mistake" in terminating F-22 production.

Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who was the Air Force chief of staff during the 1991 Operation Desert Storm and who credited air power with winning the war, was the first four-star officer to endorse the one-term senator in his presidential campaign. McPeak traveled with Obama to bolster the candidate's commander-in-chief credentials, much to the chagrin of the general's fighter pilot colleagues.

But now McPeak is breaking with Obama on the president's most contentious defense budget decision: ending production of the Air Force's top-line fighter at 187 aircraft.

"I think it's a real mistake," McPeak told FOXNews.com. "The airplane is a game-changer and people seem to forget that we haven't had any of our soldiers or Marines killed by enemy air since 1951 or something like that. It's been half a century or more since any enemy aircraft has killed one of guys. So we've gotten use to this idea that we never have to breathe hostile air."
Top Obama Backer Warns Ending F-22 Production Is 'Real Mistake' - Political News - FOXNews.com

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ploXJ56Uyvk&NR=1]YouTube - Sukhoi Su-35/37 vs F-22 Raptor[/ame]

And they want to cut this aircraft .. watch this video it says a lot about the F-22's capabilites vs. the SU-37

Bachmann’s first flight was in F-35 AA-1, a conventional takeoff and landing variant with controls and flying qualities essentially identical to the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B. The F-35B will replace Marine Corps AV-8B STOVL fighters and F/A-18 strike fighters. It will be the Marines’ primary fighter, and will provide a unique combination of capabilities: stealth, supersonic speed, STOVL basing flexibility and network-enabled mission systems.

 

[publicprotector]

How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.

 

[Navy1960]

How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.

First of all public, while your sentiments are noble none of the things you mentioned are things that the constitution empowers the Federal Govt. to do. However defending this nation is one of the things that is within it's scope of Federal Powers. One more thing to consider here, those very same aircraft you wish to cast aside in favor of all that social engineering also provide over 100,000 people and their familes exactly what you mentioned. Further, those same people then take that money and spend it in the local communites and provide all you mentioned to still more people. So as you can see, when you give someone a job and in this case a job providing for something that the constitution of our nation clearly calls for, you provide those things not only for the people building it but for many many Americans around it. In fact the defense industry as a whole employs literally millions of people in active and subcontracting roles, so how many homes, schools, and healthcare programs do you think this impacts? I would venture to say a lot. The bottom line here public is this, your Govt. is not the place to look for those things.

 

[Xenophon]

How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.

Things like this have been done in the past.

The end result was US service people being killed because they had old fashioned and inferior military equipment when an enemy appeared.

You are asking those who fight for you to die in higher numbers to save some beans back home.

Do you believe that is a fair or smart thing to do?

 

[publicprotector]

Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.

Given that the country is practically on its knees just what is the logic of producing more and more weaspons especially as it dose nothing to protcet the US or its people. America and its people have been led ibto a trap that it cannot get out of.

With all the social plans being cut, tens of thousands losing their homes, crime rampant, health and education going down the pan and yet we have people slavering over weapons of war like mindless bots.

 

[Xenophon]

Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.

The falicity of your thinking is inherent in the highlighted part.

It is NOT the job of the federal government to provide 'teachers, doctors & builders'.

It IS to provide FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.

 

[Navy1960]

Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.

Given that the country is practically on its knees just what is the logic of producing more and more weaspons especially as it dose nothing to protcet the US or its people. America and its people have been led ibto a trap that it cannot get out of.

With all the social plans being cut, tens of thousands losing their homes, crime rampant, health and education going down the pan and yet we have people slavering over weapons of war like mindless bots.

Those mindless bots as you call them have given you everything from the microwave oven, to the ability to ride safely in an Airplane when you travel. So sometimes it might not be such sound logic to just beat those swords into plowshares. The economy is not a result of military overspending , while I agree the DoD can use a little house cleaning when it comes to waste and abuse. You fail to see the point being made here, and that is that all the things you wish for our federal govt. is not empowered to give you. If you wish these things, then my suggestion is that you go and work hard and aquire them. That is a concept that is lost on most Americans these day's and frankly it does not surprise me much that many would believe as you do that the Federal Govt. is there to provide all the things in life you yourself should be able to provide for yourself. These fine people that work in the defense industry do so to provide those very things you wish someone to provide you and other for for free and also make things that not only defend this nation which is a constitutional duty of the Govt. but also benefit each and every person in this nation even if it is to proivde you with the ability to express your opinion in a Free Manner.