Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[snachito]

I recently downloaded the F-22 for FSX and really like it, although I'm sure the FM isn't even close to the real one, but still it's fun to imagine ......Anyways as I was looking around I see so much bashing on the F-22 even the F-35/F-18 Super hornet got lotsa flak (and I mean people get passionate on their opinions) as overpriced garbage!!! Are these a/c's really not on par with let's say the newer Mig, SU's, Chinese built a/c's? Or is this one of those my countries a/c is better than yours?

I'm not trying to start any problems or even want to get into arguments, if this leads into that then I will understand if thread gets deleted, but I would like to know if these US aircrafts reps are warranted!!

[Batbomb]

well the F-22 is all good man, but the F-35 is simply a design failure, a dead-end. In addition to that is very expensive...

For MiGs and chinese planes however... we don't know how good or bad they are, so a comparison is hard. The russian MiG-35 is not that advanced... it is "just" a modified MiG-29...

[LuseKofte]

F-35 is based on the F-22 and the plane is a very good design , For new pilots it is like plug and play. It fly like none before it and is like flying a simulator. They claim you can be operational only by flying the simulator. It is very accurate.
It had and has some problems, piling up to be costly and delaying the production.
The F-35 is a multi strike plane and for us the Norwegian Airforce as one of the smaller contributors want it very bad for some reason, I  think this is due to the trade agreement coming with the purchase.
So everything looks like a very good design, but it aint working right just now, pilots praise it as the best ever

[f18f_guy]

Batbomb -- the F22 and 35 roll off the same assembly line in Texas, FYI; interchangeable parts, same technology.  Performance envelopes for the Russian and (most) Chinese designs are a known quantity:  1) they publish them for foreign military sales purposes and 2) go to Farnborough, watch them fly, pick up the brochure.  I have seen the F35s in Florida go through the test phase.  Remarkable.  Pilots like them.     

[mojojojo]

The F-22 is certainly a good aircraft. It does what it was designed to do, and that is to be an excellent fighter purely designed for air superiority. The F-35 on the other hand is certainly not as great. Performance wise, it leaves a lot to be desired. It has a poor thrust to weight ratio (less than one, meaning it can't accelerate vertically like the F-16 it's supposed to replace can), poor range, poor load carrying capability, and a painfully long turnaround time and TBO time. It's biggest advantage is its stealth ability, but in its main role as a "cheap" (not really so cheap in real life, only a little bit less than the F-22 for the VTOL capable varient) strike aircraft for NATO countries to modernize their air forces doesn't really necessitate this, and for the sorts of wars that most countries are fighting these days (fighting terrorist or insurgent groups with little to no anti-air capability) the stealth isn't very practical. The main reason the F-35 program even still exists is because of Lockheed-Martin's lobbying power in the US government, otherwise we would've gone with a more cost-effective solution like the F-15SE.

[SAS~Storebror]

It has a poor thrust to weight ratio (less than one, meaning it can't accelerate vertically like the F-16 it's supposed to replace can)

You're about to compare a strike fighter with a lightweight air-to-air design, apples and oranges.

poor range

1.200nm, compared to 1.275nm for the Super Hornet. Poor?

poor load carrying capability

18.000lbs vs. 17.750 for the Super Hornet. Poor?

and a painfully long turnaround time and TBO time.

Who specified this and where?
I mean I can read horrible times like 36 hours for the F-35 (vs. e.g. 10 Minutes for the Gripen) at "specific" sources, but how does that compare?
Same for the TBO, where additionally the question is about which version of the F-35 we're speaking (lift engines naturally have a way lower TBO than the main one).

a "cheap" (not really so cheap in real life, only a little bit less than the F-22 for the VTOL capable varient) strike aircraft for NATO countries to modernize their air forces

Apples and oranges again.
How much would a V/STOL F-22 cost?
(Warning: No serious question)

a more cost-effective solution like the F-15SE.

<sarcasm>And the German Air Force would still fly 109s.</sarcasm>

Best regards - Mike

[Koty]

It has a poor thrust to weight ratio (less than one, meaning it can't accelerate vertically like the F-16 it's supposed to replace can)

You're about to compare a strike fighter with a lightweight air-to-air design, apples and oranges.

poor range

1.200nm, compared to 1.275nm for the Super Hornet. Poor?

poor load carrying capability

18.000lbs vs. 17.750 for the Super Hornet. Poor?

and a painfully long turnaround time and TBO time.

Who specified this and where?
I mean I can read horrible times like 36 hours for the F-35 (vs. e.g. 10 Minutes for the Gripen) at "specific" sources, but how does that compare?
Same for the TBO, where additionally the question is about which version of the F-35 we're speaking (lift engines naturally have a way lower TBO than the main one).

a "cheap" (not really so cheap in real life, only a little bit less than the F-22 for the VTOL capable varient) strike aircraft for NATO countries to modernize their air forces

Apples and oranges again.
How much would a V/STOL F-22 cost?
(Warning: No serious question)

a more cost-effective solution like the F-15SE.

<sarcasm>And the German Air Force would still fly 109s.</sarcasm>

Best regards - Mike

Well, here we have voices that for our needs, staying on MiG-19's would be better than JAS-39, still supersonic, but cheaper, easier to maintain, some say that it has even smaller consumption... and for Catching airliners that is good enough. (And srsly, 12 JAS-39 + 2 twoseaters - or so - that is like... nothing.)

But ahem, as for F-22 they gave up some manouverability and such in favor of stealthiness - and are trying to weight it up with computers. I don't say it's wrong, it's just different approach than Russians are implementing. They simply do it less stealthy - talking about T-50 project - (like... 5 % or so), but implementsuch things as possible outboard hardpoints, better manuverability than their counterpart, better radar (only hypothesis, there is no way to get the actual numbers), fast-launch SRAAM bays (compared to F-22, they save quite a lot of time).

When talking about F-22 as such compared to other planes, there are sure some that best it at some of, or most of, the categories (such as range, manuverability, speed,...) but it is a thing of compromise. Most planes would not detect it, until VVR, with radar, but they will be able to tell by RWR, or IRST - if they have info from GCI - but again it won't be that much better. One plane that can possibly compete with F-22 would be Su-35 - it overcomes F-22's stealthiness with a good radar, is more manuverable, better range, speed (all according to various data accros the internet - but it's definitelly not for sure, real values may be worse, or even better) - and what's most important, Flankers look goddamn sexy.

Cheers.

[Stainless]

For me there is only one comment on here that really stands out as important.

Pilots like them.     

We are all working from 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand information. We don't know.

If the pilots walk away with a smile on their faces, somethings right.

[SAS~Poltava]

It is obvious that the F-35 DO have problems. This is a first-hand report, written by a F-35 pilot, and he is not smiling that much:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

[Koty]

For me there is only one comment on here that really stands out as important.

Pilots like them.     

We are all working from 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand information. We don't know.

If the pilots walk away with a smile on their faces, somethings right.

Well, I would smile too if I was the whole time driving Trabant and then switched to... what do I know - Zhiguli. But then again, I would have no idea that neighbors Mazda 6 car is a whole class better - since I never drowe it...

(Just a simplistic and stupid example, but is basically right.)

[SAS~Tom2]

It has a poor thrust to weight ratio (less than one, meaning it can't accelerate vertically like the F-16 it's supposed to replace can)

You're about to compare a strike fighter with a lightweight air-to-air design, apples and oranges.

No he is not, it replaces the F-16, a dedicated dogfighter.

a more cost-effective solution like the F-15SE.

<sarcasm>And the German Air Force would still fly 109s.</sarcasm>


F-15SE is a kickass plane.

Best regards - Mike

[mojojojo]

My issues with the F-35 are as follows:

A) The program cost ballooning out of control. We spent way more than we ever should have on a fighter that is mediocre as best.

B) The aircraft is built to be a "swiss army knife", which looks good on paper, but never works. I just can't see the F-35 doing the A-10's job.

IMHO, we need to develop a cheaper stealth "bomb truck" type aircraft. It doesn't make sense to make big sacrifices on what is effectively going to be used as a strike aircraft (let's be real, the F-35 will likely spend 99.9% of its operational life dropping JDAMs, and will probably never dogfight) just to give it some token air-to-air capability. We need a low-cost, subsonic, stealth strike aircraft, and we can use the F-22 as our dedicated air-to-air platform. The F-35 is also far too complex to really fit its given role, and has been grounded over and over again due to various issues. Meanwhile, we killed the F-22 program for a small problem with the oxygen system that was solved quickly.