LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI thought the F22 was going to be the future for a long time, but they're saying the F35 is going to be number 1. Whats the deal? Is F22 more stealth-specific while the F35 has the VTOL trick?
I thought the F22 was going to be the future for a long time, but they're saying the F35 is going to be number 1. Whats the deal? Is F22 more stealth-specific while the F35 has the VTOL trick?
There's an export ban on the F-22 but not the F-35. That leads me to suspect that the F-22 will still have an edge over the F-35 when push come to shove. The Wiki states 'The F-35 will not be as nimble as the F-22 or fly as high or as fast, but its radar and avionics will be more advanced.' and that it can carry more payload than the F-22, but is second when it comes to close in/long range air to air capabilities.
F35 is way cheaper. The F22 is the F15 replacement, the F35 is the F16/18 replacement. Different roles, different markets.
The F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter like the F-15, with an added deep strike role afforded by supercruise and stealth. The F-35 is the all around work horse akin to the F-16, with greater CAS abilities than the F22 from it's more advanced radar, greater weapons payload(bombs are heavy) and V/STOL, allowing it to be based closer to the front line; roads, captured airbases, carparks, fields, carriers etc, basically anywhere with some flat ground you can protect and get a supply convoy to. Whereas the F-22 would require a fully equipped friendly airfield with a nicely maintained runway.
there are 3 versions of the F-35 currently proposed/under development: regular air force version, carrier version (USN) & VSTOL version (USMC & RAF/RN). It's designed to replace the A-10, F-16, F-18 & Harrier.Originally Posted by chuckskull
Assuming that you carry all weapons internally (it does have external hardpoints for increased load later when air superiority is assured & stealth is no longer needed) the F-22 is supposed to be stealthier & more manoeuvrable. It is very much optimised for air superiority but they are now trying to add ground strike capabilities (very similar to situation with Typhoon).
It's also dearer but F-35 costs are rising too ...
I heard they'd scrapped the idea of the none VSTOL ones. Though I admit I don't exactly have any sources in the US military industrial complex. I know they just retrofitted all the A-10's with a full digital package(glass cockpit, datalink, smart munitions etc) to keep it going another couple of decades as their pure ground attacker. I figured this was why, but googles not confirming it so I guess not, must be for some overlap then.
The Typhoon and F-22 both suffer the classic problem of fighting the last war and are now playing catch-up, the Taliban/Al-Qaeda and the USSR are very different enemies. They managed to turn the F-15 into a very capable ground attack/multi-role fighter from it's air superiority roots, sure they can with those too, just going to cost an awful lot of money.
no way - that's where the volume is & is the easier aircraft to design & build.
If any one variant were to be cancelled it's the VSTOL 1 that would be most likely to go imo..
Yeah thinking about it, it does seem a bit odd, teach me to believe everything discovery tells me
The problem with scrapping the STOVL version would be that the UK would then pull out, leaving a massive hole in their budget, as that's the only version I think we are looking at buying. There was also an issue where the USA wouldn't allow us access to certain software (or something), and we threatened to pull out of the program. Mind you, this is being developed by a country that once said you couldn't make a jet hover, nor make a viable supersonic airliner!
given how far along they are I don't think that would actually cause them much problem - sure unit costs might rise slightly due to the reduction in no. of production airframes but we've already paid for ~1/3 of the development costs of the whole project so far.
Or we could join the rest of the world and design aircraft carriers that planes can land on without VTOL
Smaller carriers = cheaper to run. And it's hardly the rest of the world, there's only about 6 other nations that use carriers. Most of those only have 1.Or we could join the rest of the world and design aircraft carriers that planes can land on without VTOL
Really? I obviously don't know anything about the figures, but I find it hard to believe the cost of running 30% extra tonnage would ever mount up to be equal or greater than the additional costs in developing an uncompromised VTOL aircraft.
It seems to me that VTOL is our way of saying "look, here's something only the British can design and get working".
Erm:Or we could join the rest of the world and design aircraft carriers that planes can land on without VTOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_E...rcraft_carrier
Edit: seems they can be fitted with catapults but won't be initially. My mistake.
Last edited by Rave; 19-07-2009 at 08:44 PM.
The new carriers are actually long enough for the Typhoon to take off in the convential way (with an addition of a ramp at the end). They even have arrestor hooks (there's an arrestor cable even end of runways for emergencies), it's just the the undercarriage wouldn't be able to take the impact of a landing, and uprating it would comprimise the design.
Wow, i would have never guessed the F22 is more expensive than an F35, considering STOVL should really be an expensive system
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote