11 ms·

I don't think there is another fighter in the world that can compete, aside from the F-22 which is so advanced we will never sell it to allies.

ttul 4y ago
Help me understand what sets the F-22 apart from the F-35? I've read the Wikipedia pages, but I still don't get why F-22 is so remarkable that it cannot be sold to other countries.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Speed and stealth I assume. From what I understand the top speed is classified, and stealth is still a super secret technology where they count the milligrams of exterior coating when decommissioning a stealth fighter.
  - nl 4y ago
    Speed isn't very important at all, and I don't think it is classified. For example, the F22 has a slower top speed than the F15 (although higher non-afterburner speed).
    - nradov 4y ago
      Speed would be very important in a potential Pacific Theater conflict. The F-22 is significantly more fuel efficient than the F-15 so while the top speed might be slightly slower it can actually maintain a higher average speed in real operations.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Speed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31, or when you want to avoid being intercepted yourself (such as after being detected during a penetration mission). Speed also provides an energy advantage against SAM's and very long range ATA missiles. The F-35 can probably go faster than the stated top speed of M1.6, though, if surivival depends on it. I would guess its real top speed is around M2, similar to an F-16.
      - nl 4y ago
        > peed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31 No it's not. Modern US doctrine favors early detection and long range engagement by missiles.
        trashtester 4y ago
        Ok, maybe you have information I don't have, but those planes have long range missiles of their own. What would a US carrier group do to stop a large group of Tu-160, Tu-22, Mig31 and similar aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, and some of which are supersonic or even hypersonic? If the carrier is several 1000 kilometer from land, maybe F35's flying CAP + any additional scrambled fighters may provide enough protection. But the closer the carrier gets to land, the more vulnerable they may be. What kind of missile would you use against these bombers, and at what distance? Now keep in mind that the enemy can stay in the air for a while far within their friendly airspace, and then suddenly start a dash towards you at a speed of Mach2. In cases like this, I would believe that having a few F-22 around (possibly from land based air bases in the area) would be a good addition to the fighters on the carrier, simply because the F-22 could much more easily dance with the enemy bombers as they were repositioning.
        gggggg5 4y ago
        > anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, What now? A Kinzhal will probably fly that far, but it won't hit a moving ship at that distance.
        trashtester 4y ago
        It's claimed to have an operational range of 3000km. Kh-55 has a similar range, but lower speed (sea-skimming, though). Then there is the Kh-32 with operational range stated as 600-1000km. And then there are plenty of missiles of ranges from 300-1000km. Also, China is actively developing similar systems. I suppose it's classified at what ranges these systems would be able hit targets such as carriers. But if they're able to at all, it would be at rangers much beyond what you can defend against with aim120/aim160 missiles. RIM 161/SM3 would provide some protection, but they are probably not very accurate at the extreme ranges, especially if targetting supersonic attackers. Which means that interceptors may be the best option. Against large groups of enemies, the speed of the interceptor is still relevant, and there are certainly some in the Navy that worries about the loss of the F14, in particular in the Pacific. For now, I suppose it makes sense to have some F22's and F15's in the general area where such conflicts could take place.
  - ffhhj 4y ago
    Why is classified speed so important? Couldn't it be aproximated with a sort of Doomsday Argument approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      not well. That requires an unbiased sample which they work really hard not to show.
      - rozab 4y ago
        Case in point - that one MiG-25 clocked at Mach 3.2 by Western radar over Egypt
    - kneebonian 4y ago
      Well because in combat seconds and centimeters can make a difference. You might know it is capable of Mach 4 and can plan for that, but if it's capable of Mach 4.2 and you haven't found it economical to respond to that, it is the difference between life and death. "All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > what sets the F-22 apart from the F-35 The F-22 can go faster and further than the F-35. It's also more maneuverable and a touch stealthier. (The F-35 has better tech, is cheaper to build and operate and can carry more armament.)
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Other than the Pentagon's own made up numbers there is no evidence the F-35 is cheaper.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > there is no evidence the F-35 is cheaper Than the F-22??
      - sidewndr46 4y ago
        For the F-35 to work out to somehow being cheaper than the F-22 they have to acquire some insane number of them for nearly two decades then keep them in service for 50 years. At some point reality is going to set in that a front-line aircraft that is also old enough to run for senator may not be the best idea. It's also unlikely the projected numbers are ever going to be acquired simply due to the fact that projected budgets and reality don't usually agree. Particularly during R&D you can kick and scream as much as you want to deny reality about things. At some point it will set in that while the F-35 does in fact exist as an aircraft, it isn't practical, meets none of it's objectives and may actually be operationally inferior to existing aircraft. If you don't believe me read any of the DOT&E reports on the F-35. Even they mention that for things to work out would require the F-35 program to suddenly go from never meeting any of their own objectives to meeting 100% of them for the forseeable future. My personal projection is that acquisition is halted in the next few years and in less than 20 years the available aircraft will be in storage in Davis-Monthan or a similar facility.
    - fnrslvr 4y ago
      Are you claiming that the Pentagon is secretly acquiring F-35 airframes for far higher prices than other JSF program partners or foreign sales customers, in order to cook the books?
- smiley1437 4y ago
  It's not necessarily how remarkable it is, it's more about not exporting your absolute most advanced technologies because it's more likely for a future adversary to gain access to it, and thus learn how copy it or defeat it. Most nations want to hang onto that technological edge as long as feasible.
- bsder 4y ago
  F-35 is multi-role while the F-22 was optimized primarily for air. The "multi-role" thing is what made developing and debugging the F-35 such a pain. However, that seems to be paying off as now it gets manufactured in more and more volume.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > The "multi-role" thing is what made developing and debugging the F-35 such a > pain. Not so much the multi role part as the fact that it's really 3 different aircraft that they tried to make as similar as possible. Had they only made the F35A, with the rules of F35B and C covered by other planes, then it would probably be either cheaper or more capable in some ways.
- whalesalad 4y ago
  The F-22 is a single purpose machine like a Ferrari or Lamborghini, whereas the F-35 is more of a utility vehicle like a Toyota Hilux. The F-35 can do vertical takeoff (VTOL), carrier landings for the Navy (F-22 cannot), and has multiple variants to support these deployment scenarios. The F-22 doesn't really have any variants, it is an Air Force plane thru and thru. The A in F-35A designates air force, conventional take-off and alnding. Other variants exist, like the F-35B (this one can do VTOL) and F-35C (catapult-assisted, aka getting yeeted off of an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean). All of this comes at a trade-off / engineering cost, of course. The F-22 is more of a specialized scalpel, the F-35 is meant to be more versatile and operate in more environments. There is a sacrifice to be made there. The F-22 is more stealth, has more thrust, is faster and more maneuverable - meant to be used in air to air combat. The F-35 is smaller, slower, but can do things like vertical takeoff. It is designed more for ground assault type work, bombing runs, etc. In a dogfight I do not think that there is an aircraft on this planet that can compete against an F-22. The F-35 is no slouch, either, but the F-22 is the alpha predator.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    There is no variant of the F-35 that can do VTOL. Apparently they did a test and got some prototype to take off vertically with no fuel and nothing else on board. But it is not a VTOL aircraft.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Apparently they did a test and got some prototype to take off vertically with no fuel That would be…impressive, actually. But I doubt any variant of the F-35 has demonstrated takeoff, vertical or otherwise, without fuel, though I suppose if you were extremely generous with your definition of “takeoff”, the F-35C might be able to, given its CATOBAR capability.
      - Nition 4y ago
        Okay smartypants, I'm sure they meant a minimal amount of fuel.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The F-22 was a "money is no object" design intended to push the state-of-the-art in terms of absolute performance even with diminishing ROI. The F-35 was designed to be a mass produced aircraft that (1) could be exported widely without risk of leaking too many secrets and (2) reduced absolute performance and features based on a more pragmatic cost-benefit analysis where it only needed to be good enough and not the best possible. Economies of scale factored greatly into its design.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Help me understand what sets the F-22 apart from the F-35? Supersonic flight without afterburners (supercruise). In theory, at least, that should be a huge advantage on either side of an interception scenarios.
- jasmer 4y ago
  F22 is stealthier and has better radar packages, more oriented towards air superiority. F22 is designed to completely dominate the sky. F35 was originally designed to be a multi-role fighter, it's still that, but not cheap. And has some very advanced features not noted in this article, oddly. Integrated sensors and communications turn it into a flying AWACS, very potent.
  - protocolture 4y ago
    As opposed to a crawling AWACS?
    - jasmer 4y ago
      ... as opposed to an AWACS AWACS.
    - devoutsalsa 4y ago
      There’s a gliding AWACS that is much cheaper. There’s also a single use AWACS that you can launch from a trebuchet, which also doubles as ammunition to batter your enemy’s defenses.
- Xixi 4y ago
  Estimated frontal Radar Cross Section (really just estimates, actual figures tend to be classified as you can imagine): 1.2m² for the F-16, 0.8m² for Mirage 2000 and Gripen C, 0.04m² for Rafale and Eurofighter (0.05m² with anti-air missiles), 0.002m² for the F-35, 0.0002m² for the F-22. [1] Using F-16 the baseline, Rafale is 30x smaller, F-35 is 600x smaller and F-22 is 6000x smaller. So there's a factor 10 in favor of the F-22 when compared to the F-35. On top of that F-22 is said to be more optimized in all directions, while for the F-35 the focus was more on the frontal RCS, so the F-22 overall average RCS is probably even better. Europeans will note that in terms of RCS, the 4.5 Gen moniker of Rafale/EF is well deserved: halfway between an F-16 and an F-35... [1] Figures gathered from this thread: http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/20630-rafale/page/2023/ http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/20630-rafale/page/202...
  - kqr 4y ago
    For context, 0.002 m² is about the top area of a small matchbox. 0.0002 m² is the frontal area of a coin.
- trashtester 4y ago
  The F-22 cannot be sold to anyone, because it's not longer in production. When it WAS in production, it was 2 decades ahead of anything else. Had it been the F35 in production at that time, it too would be illegal to export.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  The F-22's thrust vectoring and related avionics and controls are unparalleled, and its stealth is supposedly much better.
wonderwonder 4y ago
We cant build F-22's anymore. What we have are all there will ever be.
- WirelessGigabit 4y ago
  Can you elaborate on that?
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    They're really expensive so the US cancelled the remaining production.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - whalesalad 4y ago
    Production was ended for a lot of reasons, but the program still exists in a support role. They're deployed in active duty and are upgraded/retrofitted with modern technology.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    Most / All of the infrastructure built to build the F-22 has been cannabalized to build the F-35. The production machinery and factories for the most part just don't exist anymore and would have to be rebuilt.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    In the 2000s, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates cancelled the program. IIRC Gates concluded - and many agreed - that the F-22 was designed for an enemy and fight that no longer existed, the Soviet Union and the Cold War. You might think history proved Gates wrong, but no air power can compete with what the US has now, sans the F-22, and it would have been very expensive.
    - rnk 4y ago
      I assume gates et al weren't foreseeing the rapid rise of china then. That plus the seemingly rapid advance of drones must make it difficult to plan the last few years.
lumost 4y ago
Is the F-22 still advanced? As I recall, it's still running a computer from ‘93 - is it's radar, sensor fusion, and weapons system competitive with an f-35? Would an f-35 with awacs support beat an f-22 with awacs support in Beyond visual range combat?
- whalesalad 4y ago
  There is intentionally not a lot of public knowledge released on the F-22. All aircraft are constantly retrofitted and upgraded to remain modern and relevant. Huge huge huge amounts of money are spent on this. Hell, the B-52 is still in service today and it was released in 1952. I can't say for certain, but I would be surprised if the F-22's in operation today have as-advanced or more advanced capabilities than the F-35. Just because they are older does not mean they are running older tech. They'll gut the entire cockpit and drop in a new one no problemo.
- justin66 4y ago
  The F-22 is frighteningly capable in the air superiority role, by all accounts, when it comes to stuff like NATO exercises and Red Flag. AFAIK they haven't lost any flying attack missions against rebels in Yemen, which might or might not be proof of anything. It's not going to have next-generation stuff like Multifunction Advanced Data Link. I assume that's because of its older avionics, and because it has been deemed not worth upgrading because of its age. [0] It's not my area of expertise but it's probably accurate to say that the F-22 is stronger than anything at its specialized, traditional air superiority mission but it will be left behind when it comes to flying alongside drones and other interceptors. The F-15EX and F-35, along with unmanned drones, will be able to do amazing things in concert by communicating with one another over their network. That is a different paradigm. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunctional_Information_Distribution_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunctional_Information_Di...
  - hef19898 4y ago
    The F-22 flew over Jemen? Didn't know that... But then, the only really contested air spaces were Iraq, Serbia (both before the F-22, and the latter let to the retirement of the F-117) and now Ukraine. In all other cases, NATO and other forces had complete air superiority. And under these conditions, WW2 planes would do the job.
porphyra 4y ago
What about the J-20?
hef19898 4y ago
The F-22 isn't built anymore. And as far as F-35 alternatives go, the Eurofighter and the Rafale come to mind. Not that the F-35 is a bad plane, so. Edit: One thing the F-35 has that the other planes don't: Interoperability across basically all NATO nations and beyond. And it is the most up to date, and still in volume production, model.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  If we speak of specific capabilties: The F-22, F-15C/D/E/EX and F/A-18C/D/E/F are better at air superiority. The F-15E and -EX are better at ground attack. The A-10 is better at close air support. The F-16 (all its variants...) is on par with the F-35 on all counts except for stealth and STOVL. The only thing the F-35 has a decisive advantage in is STOVL capability. Everything else is compromised to achieve the "one plane fits all" vision; the F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none.
  - hnav 4y ago
    I thought it’s not one plane but at least 3 with enough parts commonality to amortize the cost?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > F-15C/D/E/EX and F/A-18C/D/E/F are better at air superiority It's like you give zero credit for either stealth or that fancy radar, which are pretty important in a modern air superiority role.
  - jandrewrogers 4y ago
    The A-10 is obsolete. Its airframe literally can’t hold the power systems required to support modern defensive and offensive capabilities. It would get wrecked against any modern air defense environment. It was designed for the threat environment from half a century ago with no upgrade path. F-15 and F-18 are not better at air superiority. The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times. The F-35 can carry much more weapons payload than any of the 4th gen aircraft you mention and has more range. That on its own is a huge win, stealth and sensors notwithstanding. You don’t seem to understand the criteria against which military aircraft are judged.
alkonaut 4y ago
The closest competitor in this race was probably the SAAB Gripen, which would win out on several categories (Cost per flight hour, maintenance cost and complexity, ground turnaround time, more capable AA missiles until at least 2027, more local production). So while the decision to go with F-35 of several "almost" Gripen buyers is understandable, it was by no means a walk over. Few buyers of F-35 will have much local manufacturing and technology transfer, for example. It's basically buying off Lockheed's shelf, paying US wages rather than domestic ones. The sticker price will look similar but mean different things. The deal does mention "opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35..." which I'm not sure exactly what it is. I thought the US and Lockheed were extremely reluctant to this kind of transfer.
- alexisread 4y ago
  The Gripen also wins on a huge metric of having source code access, and a more open supply chain (not ALIS). Not sure I'd buy a plane that I don't really own. In addition, this is an F35A vs Gripen E, so the Gripen has a better STOL capability, likely better radar (rotating GaN), more mature avionics link, supercruise, similar RCS (apart from frontal, it's likely to be smaller, red flag exercises hinted that they were not really detectable) and faster software updates. WRT stealth, if you want to be stealthy you can't use active radar, only passive. As such having IRST capability in addition to a good datalink is extremely useful to detect other aircraft. The F22 has no IR capability so is at a disadvantage in BVR from that, similar for the F35 which (I think) only has a downward targeting IR. From a reliability perspective, the Gripen is a long way ahead, the duty availability F35s is probably 70% at best by now (2019 figure was 50% https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-06-16/question-marks-remain-over-f-35-availability-support https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-06-16/q...) mainly due to parts shortage. The F35 still can't fly in stormy weather due to lightning strikes etc. I've no doubt the F35 can be a capable aircraft, just not compared to it's competitors. The decision, as usual, is more a political one.
  - notlukesky 4y ago
    Apart from being a hangar queen, the F35 is not technically “owned”. More like a long term “lease” or SaaS model. You need a new PIN code, aka OTP, every day from the US government to just operate it when it is not under maintenance.
pm3003 4y ago
The problem with the F-35 is its cost for the buying country. Complex, costly, almost no offsets, and black box systems (only the Israeli AFAIK have a custom system). Also it can only take a few munitions, while keeping its supposed stealth, hence the famed RAND study predicting a US defeat in the event of a Taiwan battle. Also it is more fitting to consider the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C as three completely different aircrafts. Two major problems arise : - the "aircraft carrier" or "tessarakonteres" problem : at some point your system (ship or aircraft) is too complex and costly to risk losing it in battle, even if it is supposedly very hard to defeat. And the slightest damage is very costly in terms of down time. This is amplified by the single-type problem. - the F-35 kills your local industry and makes supply and maintenance chains complex and dependent upon US and Lockheed-Martin goodwill, including on the software side. This is one of the major points from critics, among them Boeing. The Finland deal seems to address the last point, and seems much better than other F-35 deals with European countries. That said, the F-35 is a revolution for US allies, even those who didn't buy it. The information flow in central to the aircraft like to no previous US fighter. A few years ago the French Rafale notably defeated every aircraft in air superiority games (draw against the theoretically much better F-22) because its information systems could be updated quickly to the local conditions. Every US-allied Air force around the world acknowledges today that compatibility with the F-35 information systems will be the only way to carry out allied operations in the near future, like Link-16 today. If you can't do it, you'll have a very hard time showing up as a blue dot on the screen, let alone be efficient in combat. The easy solution is to buy Lockheed-Martin. However, I really think it's a bad thing in the long-term.
euler_angles 4y ago
The F-22 was that advanced. The avionics suite of the F-35 is significantly more advanced than the F-22. The F-22 hasn't been produced in over a decade and is going to be phased out in the early 2030s. Even if there weren't a law still on the books banning the F-22's export, we don't have production and no one would buy one when they could have a still-in-production F-35.

ttul 4y ago

Help me understand what sets the F-22 apart from the F-35? I've read the Wikipedia pages, but I still don't get why F-22 is so remarkable that it cannot be sold to other countries.

kneebonian 4y ago
Speed and stealth I assume. From what I understand the top speed is classified, and stealth is still a super secret technology where they count the milligrams of exterior coating when decommissioning a stealth fighter.
- nl 4y ago
  Speed isn't very important at all, and I don't think it is classified. For example, the F22 has a slower top speed than the F15 (although higher non-afterburner speed).
  - nradov 4y ago
    Speed would be very important in a potential Pacific Theater conflict. The F-22 is significantly more fuel efficient than the F-15 so while the top speed might be slightly slower it can actually maintain a higher average speed in real operations.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Speed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31, or when you want to avoid being intercepted yourself (such as after being detected during a penetration mission). Speed also provides an energy advantage against SAM's and very long range ATA missiles. The F-35 can probably go faster than the stated top speed of M1.6, though, if surivival depends on it. I would guess its real top speed is around M2, similar to an F-16.
    - nl 4y ago
      > peed is important for some mission types, like when you're intercepting a Tu-160 or Mig-31 No it's not. Modern US doctrine favors early detection and long range engagement by missiles.
      - trashtester 4y ago
        Ok, maybe you have information I don't have, but those planes have long range missiles of their own. What would a US carrier group do to stop a large group of Tu-160, Tu-22, Mig31 and similar aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, and some of which are supersonic or even hypersonic? If the carrier is several 1000 kilometer from land, maybe F35's flying CAP + any additional scrambled fighters may provide enough protection. But the closer the carrier gets to land, the more vulnerable they may be. What kind of missile would you use against these bombers, and at what distance? Now keep in mind that the enemy can stay in the air for a while far within their friendly airspace, and then suddenly start a dash towards you at a speed of Mach2. In cases like this, I would believe that having a few F-22 around (possibly from land based air bases in the area) would be a good addition to the fighters on the carrier, simply because the F-22 could much more easily dance with the enemy bombers as they were repositioning.
        gggggg5 4y ago
        > anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, What now? A Kinzhal will probably fly that far, but it won't hit a moving ship at that distance.
        trashtester 4y ago
        It's claimed to have an operational range of 3000km. Kh-55 has a similar range, but lower speed (sea-skimming, though). Then there is the Kh-32 with operational range stated as 600-1000km. And then there are plenty of missiles of ranges from 300-1000km. Also, China is actively developing similar systems. I suppose it's classified at what ranges these systems would be able hit targets such as carriers. But if they're able to at all, it would be at rangers much beyond what you can defend against with aim120/aim160 missiles. RIM 161/SM3 would provide some protection, but they are probably not very accurate at the extreme ranges, especially if targetting supersonic attackers. Which means that interceptors may be the best option. Against large groups of enemies, the speed of the interceptor is still relevant, and there are certainly some in the Navy that worries about the loss of the F14, in particular in the Pacific. For now, I suppose it makes sense to have some F22's and F15's in the general area where such conflicts could take place.
- ffhhj 4y ago
  Why is classified speed so important? Couldn't it be aproximated with a sort of Doomsday Argument approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    not well. That requires an unbiased sample which they work really hard not to show.
    - rozab 4y ago
      Case in point - that one MiG-25 clocked at Mach 3.2 by Western radar over Egypt
  - kneebonian 4y ago
    Well because in combat seconds and centimeters can make a difference. You might know it is capable of Mach 4 and can plan for that, but if it's capable of Mach 4.2 and you haven't found it economical to respond to that, it is the difference between life and death. "All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> what sets the F-22 apart from the F-35 The F-22 can go faster and further than the F-35. It's also more maneuverable and a touch stealthier. (The F-35 has better tech, is cheaper to build and operate and can carry more armament.)
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Other than the Pentagon's own made up numbers there is no evidence the F-35 is cheaper.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > there is no evidence the F-35 is cheaper Than the F-22??
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      For the F-35 to work out to somehow being cheaper than the F-22 they have to acquire some insane number of them for nearly two decades then keep them in service for 50 years. At some point reality is going to set in that a front-line aircraft that is also old enough to run for senator may not be the best idea. It's also unlikely the projected numbers are ever going to be acquired simply due to the fact that projected budgets and reality don't usually agree. Particularly during R&D you can kick and scream as much as you want to deny reality about things. At some point it will set in that while the F-35 does in fact exist as an aircraft, it isn't practical, meets none of it's objectives and may actually be operationally inferior to existing aircraft. If you don't believe me read any of the DOT&E reports on the F-35. Even they mention that for things to work out would require the F-35 program to suddenly go from never meeting any of their own objectives to meeting 100% of them for the forseeable future. My personal projection is that acquisition is halted in the next few years and in less than 20 years the available aircraft will be in storage in Davis-Monthan or a similar facility.
  - fnrslvr 4y ago
    Are you claiming that the Pentagon is secretly acquiring F-35 airframes for far higher prices than other JSF program partners or foreign sales customers, in order to cook the books?
smiley1437 4y ago
It's not necessarily how remarkable it is, it's more about not exporting your absolute most advanced technologies because it's more likely for a future adversary to gain access to it, and thus learn how copy it or defeat it. Most nations want to hang onto that technological edge as long as feasible.
bsder 4y ago
F-35 is multi-role while the F-22 was optimized primarily for air. The "multi-role" thing is what made developing and debugging the F-35 such a pain. However, that seems to be paying off as now it gets manufactured in more and more volume.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > The "multi-role" thing is what made developing and debugging the F-35 such a > pain. Not so much the multi role part as the fact that it's really 3 different aircraft that they tried to make as similar as possible. Had they only made the F35A, with the rules of F35B and C covered by other planes, then it would probably be either cheaper or more capable in some ways.
whalesalad 4y ago
The F-22 is a single purpose machine like a Ferrari or Lamborghini, whereas the F-35 is more of a utility vehicle like a Toyota Hilux. The F-35 can do vertical takeoff (VTOL), carrier landings for the Navy (F-22 cannot), and has multiple variants to support these deployment scenarios. The F-22 doesn't really have any variants, it is an Air Force plane thru and thru. The A in F-35A designates air force, conventional take-off and alnding. Other variants exist, like the F-35B (this one can do VTOL) and F-35C (catapult-assisted, aka getting yeeted off of an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean). All of this comes at a trade-off / engineering cost, of course. The F-22 is more of a specialized scalpel, the F-35 is meant to be more versatile and operate in more environments. There is a sacrifice to be made there. The F-22 is more stealth, has more thrust, is faster and more maneuverable - meant to be used in air to air combat. The F-35 is smaller, slower, but can do things like vertical takeoff. It is designed more for ground assault type work, bombing runs, etc. In a dogfight I do not think that there is an aircraft on this planet that can compete against an F-22. The F-35 is no slouch, either, but the F-22 is the alpha predator.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  There is no variant of the F-35 that can do VTOL. Apparently they did a test and got some prototype to take off vertically with no fuel and nothing else on board. But it is not a VTOL aircraft.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Apparently they did a test and got some prototype to take off vertically with no fuel That would be…impressive, actually. But I doubt any variant of the F-35 has demonstrated takeoff, vertical or otherwise, without fuel, though I suppose if you were extremely generous with your definition of “takeoff”, the F-35C might be able to, given its CATOBAR capability.
    - Nition 4y ago
      Okay smartypants, I'm sure they meant a minimal amount of fuel.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
The F-22 was a "money is no object" design intended to push the state-of-the-art in terms of absolute performance even with diminishing ROI. The F-35 was designed to be a mass produced aircraft that (1) could be exported widely without risk of leaking too many secrets and (2) reduced absolute performance and features based on a more pragmatic cost-benefit analysis where it only needed to be good enough and not the best possible. Economies of scale factored greatly into its design.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Help me understand what sets the F-22 apart from the F-35? Supersonic flight without afterburners (supercruise). In theory, at least, that should be a huge advantage on either side of an interception scenarios.
jasmer 4y ago
F22 is stealthier and has better radar packages, more oriented towards air superiority. F22 is designed to completely dominate the sky. F35 was originally designed to be a multi-role fighter, it's still that, but not cheap. And has some very advanced features not noted in this article, oddly. Integrated sensors and communications turn it into a flying AWACS, very potent.
- protocolture 4y ago
  As opposed to a crawling AWACS?
  - jasmer 4y ago
    ... as opposed to an AWACS AWACS.
  - devoutsalsa 4y ago
    There’s a gliding AWACS that is much cheaper. There’s also a single use AWACS that you can launch from a trebuchet, which also doubles as ammunition to batter your enemy’s defenses.
Xixi 4y ago
Estimated frontal Radar Cross Section (really just estimates, actual figures tend to be classified as you can imagine): 1.2m² for the F-16, 0.8m² for Mirage 2000 and Gripen C, 0.04m² for Rafale and Eurofighter (0.05m² with anti-air missiles), 0.002m² for the F-35, 0.0002m² for the F-22. [1] Using F-16 the baseline, Rafale is 30x smaller, F-35 is 600x smaller and F-22 is 6000x smaller. So there's a factor 10 in favor of the F-22 when compared to the F-35. On top of that F-22 is said to be more optimized in all directions, while for the F-35 the focus was more on the frontal RCS, so the F-22 overall average RCS is probably even better. Europeans will note that in terms of RCS, the 4.5 Gen moniker of Rafale/EF is well deserved: halfway between an F-16 and an F-35... [1] Figures gathered from this thread: http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/20630-rafale/page/2023/ http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/20630-rafale/page/202...
- kqr 4y ago
  For context, 0.002 m² is about the top area of a small matchbox. 0.0002 m² is the frontal area of a coin.
trashtester 4y ago
The F-22 cannot be sold to anyone, because it's not longer in production. When it WAS in production, it was 2 decades ahead of anything else. Had it been the F35 in production at that time, it too would be illegal to export.
cryptonector 4y ago
The F-22's thrust vectoring and related avionics and controls are unparalleled, and its stealth is supposedly much better.

wonderwonder 4y ago

We cant build F-22's anymore. What we have are all there will ever be.

WirelessGigabit 4y ago
Can you elaborate on that?
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  They're really expensive so the US cancelled the remaining production.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- whalesalad 4y ago
  Production was ended for a lot of reasons, but the program still exists in a support role. They're deployed in active duty and are upgraded/retrofitted with modern technology.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  Most / All of the infrastructure built to build the F-22 has been cannabalized to build the F-35. The production machinery and factories for the most part just don't exist anymore and would have to be rebuilt.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  In the 2000s, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates cancelled the program. IIRC Gates concluded - and many agreed - that the F-22 was designed for an enemy and fight that no longer existed, the Soviet Union and the Cold War. You might think history proved Gates wrong, but no air power can compete with what the US has now, sans the F-22, and it would have been very expensive.
  - rnk 4y ago
    I assume gates et al weren't foreseeing the rapid rise of china then. That plus the seemingly rapid advance of drones must make it difficult to plan the last few years.

lumost 4y ago

Is the F-22 still advanced? As I recall, it's still running a computer from ‘93 - is it's radar, sensor fusion, and weapons system competitive with an f-35? Would an f-35 with awacs support beat an f-22 with awacs support in Beyond visual range combat?

whalesalad 4y ago
There is intentionally not a lot of public knowledge released on the F-22. All aircraft are constantly retrofitted and upgraded to remain modern and relevant. Huge huge huge amounts of money are spent on this. Hell, the B-52 is still in service today and it was released in 1952. I can't say for certain, but I would be surprised if the F-22's in operation today have as-advanced or more advanced capabilities than the F-35. Just because they are older does not mean they are running older tech. They'll gut the entire cockpit and drop in a new one no problemo.
justin66 4y ago
The F-22 is frighteningly capable in the air superiority role, by all accounts, when it comes to stuff like NATO exercises and Red Flag. AFAIK they haven't lost any flying attack missions against rebels in Yemen, which might or might not be proof of anything. It's not going to have next-generation stuff like Multifunction Advanced Data Link. I assume that's because of its older avionics, and because it has been deemed not worth upgrading because of its age. [0] It's not my area of expertise but it's probably accurate to say that the F-22 is stronger than anything at its specialized, traditional air superiority mission but it will be left behind when it comes to flying alongside drones and other interceptors. The F-15EX and F-35, along with unmanned drones, will be able to do amazing things in concert by communicating with one another over their network. That is a different paradigm. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunctional_Information_Distribution_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunctional_Information_Di...
- hef19898 4y ago
  The F-22 flew over Jemen? Didn't know that... But then, the only really contested air spaces were Iraq, Serbia (both before the F-22, and the latter let to the retirement of the F-117) and now Ukraine. In all other cases, NATO and other forces had complete air superiority. And under these conditions, WW2 planes would do the job.

porphyra 4y ago

What about the J-20?

hef19898 4y ago

The F-22 isn't built anymore. And as far as F-35 alternatives go, the Eurofighter and the Rafale come to mind. Not that the F-35 is a bad plane, so. Edit: One thing the F-35 has that the other planes don't: Interoperability across basically all NATO nations and beyond. And it is the most up to date, and still in volume production, model.

Dalewyn 4y ago
If we speak of specific capabilties: The F-22, F-15C/D/E/EX and F/A-18C/D/E/F are better at air superiority. The F-15E and -EX are better at ground attack. The A-10 is better at close air support. The F-16 (all its variants...) is on par with the F-35 on all counts except for stealth and STOVL. The only thing the F-35 has a decisive advantage in is STOVL capability. Everything else is compromised to achieve the "one plane fits all" vision; the F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none.
- hnav 4y ago
  I thought it’s not one plane but at least 3 with enough parts commonality to amortize the cost?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > F-15C/D/E/EX and F/A-18C/D/E/F are better at air superiority It's like you give zero credit for either stealth or that fancy radar, which are pretty important in a modern air superiority role.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The A-10 is obsolete. Its airframe literally can’t hold the power systems required to support modern defensive and offensive capabilities. It would get wrecked against any modern air defense environment. It was designed for the threat environment from half a century ago with no upgrade path. F-15 and F-18 are not better at air superiority. The latest flavor of F-15 can still hold its own against other 4th gen aircraft but it will struggle against 5th gen aircraft. This has been demonstrated many times. The F-35 can carry much more weapons payload than any of the 4th gen aircraft you mention and has more range. That on its own is a huge win, stealth and sensors notwithstanding. You don’t seem to understand the criteria against which military aircraft are judged.

alkonaut 4y ago

The closest competitor in this race was probably the SAAB Gripen, which would win out on several categories (Cost per flight hour, maintenance cost and complexity, ground turnaround time, more capable AA missiles until at least 2027, more local production). So while the decision to go with F-35 of several "almost" Gripen buyers is understandable, it was by no means a walk over. Few buyers of F-35 will have much local manufacturing and technology transfer, for example. It's basically buying off Lockheed's shelf, paying US wages rather than domestic ones. The sticker price will look similar but mean different things. The deal does mention "opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35..." which I'm not sure exactly what it is. I thought the US and Lockheed were extremely reluctant to this kind of transfer.

alexisread 4y ago
The Gripen also wins on a huge metric of having source code access, and a more open supply chain (not ALIS). Not sure I'd buy a plane that I don't really own. In addition, this is an F35A vs Gripen E, so the Gripen has a better STOL capability, likely better radar (rotating GaN), more mature avionics link, supercruise, similar RCS (apart from frontal, it's likely to be smaller, red flag exercises hinted that they were not really detectable) and faster software updates. WRT stealth, if you want to be stealthy you can't use active radar, only passive. As such having IRST capability in addition to a good datalink is extremely useful to detect other aircraft. The F22 has no IR capability so is at a disadvantage in BVR from that, similar for the F35 which (I think) only has a downward targeting IR. From a reliability perspective, the Gripen is a long way ahead, the duty availability F35s is probably 70% at best by now (2019 figure was 50% https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-06-16/question-marks-remain-over-f-35-availability-support https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-06-16/q...) mainly due to parts shortage. The F35 still can't fly in stormy weather due to lightning strikes etc. I've no doubt the F35 can be a capable aircraft, just not compared to it's competitors. The decision, as usual, is more a political one.
- notlukesky 4y ago
  Apart from being a hangar queen, the F35 is not technically “owned”. More like a long term “lease” or SaaS model. You need a new PIN code, aka OTP, every day from the US government to just operate it when it is not under maintenance.

pm3003 4y ago

The problem with the F-35 is its cost for the buying country. Complex, costly, almost no offsets, and black box systems (only the Israeli AFAIK have a custom system). Also it can only take a few munitions, while keeping its supposed stealth, hence the famed RAND study predicting a US defeat in the event of a Taiwan battle. Also it is more fitting to consider the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C as three completely different aircrafts. Two major problems arise : - the "aircraft carrier" or "tessarakonteres" problem : at some point your system (ship or aircraft) is too complex and costly to risk losing it in battle, even if it is supposedly very hard to defeat. And the slightest damage is very costly in terms of down time. This is amplified by the single-type problem. - the F-35 kills your local industry and makes supply and maintenance chains complex and dependent upon US and Lockheed-Martin goodwill, including on the software side. This is one of the major points from critics, among them Boeing. The Finland deal seems to address the last point, and seems much better than other F-35 deals with European countries. That said, the F-35 is a revolution for US allies, even those who didn't buy it. The information flow in central to the aircraft like to no previous US fighter. A few years ago the French Rafale notably defeated every aircraft in air superiority games (draw against the theoretically much better F-22) because its information systems could be updated quickly to the local conditions. Every US-allied Air force around the world acknowledges today that compatibility with the F-35 information systems will be the only way to carry out allied operations in the near future, like Link-16 today. If you can't do it, you'll have a very hard time showing up as a blue dot on the screen, let alone be efficient in combat. The easy solution is to buy Lockheed-Martin. However, I really think it's a bad thing in the long-term.

euler_angles 4y ago

The F-22 was that advanced. The avionics suite of the F-35 is significantly more advanced than the F-22. The F-22 hasn't been produced in over a decade and is going to be phased out in the early 2030s. Even if there weren't a law still on the books banning the F-22's export, we don't have production and no one would buy one when they could have a still-in-production F-35.