5 ms·

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

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.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> the F-35B (this one can do VTOL) The F-35B is STOVL (Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing), not VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing).
- clouddrover 4y ago
  The F-35B is capable of vertical takeoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY Lockheed Martin says of the video: "An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance."
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    This is not a combat functionality and would never be used in actual combat environment. F-35 is explicitly not a VTOL aircraft any more than a baseball is.
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      So you agree with Lockheed Martin. Super.
raihansaputra 4y ago
F35B also has the hover capability. Its focus is to support in CAS (Close Air Support) roles, not necessarily doing hover support like helicopters, but STOVL capability needed to be stationed on temporary smaller airfields. AFAIK it's main use-case is to support the Marines.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
baron816 4y ago
My understanding is that dogfighting shouldn’t be a thing with the F-35. It’s not like in Top Gun where the pilot needs to align the plane with its target to shoot it down. The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on. That means they can shoot down someone that’s behind them. No acrobatics needed. The F-35 comes with a bunch of other technology that make it truly formidable. The cost has also come down substantially, so it’s probably the cheapest option out there as well.
- mlyle 4y ago
  We keep saying missiles are great and dogfighting is over, and we keep being proven wrong. Mind you, eventually this will be correct... just it's been declared prematurely for 60 years and so this still may not be the correct moment to say so. > The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on. Missile performance won't be equal in this case; if the enemy can launch missiles with higher pkill, well..
  - jandrewrogers 4y ago
    Dogfighting has been over for advanced militaries for a couple decades now. It isn’t the 1970s. The BVR kill probabilities are approaching unity.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      I agree with your main sentiment. There are niches for WVR combat, though, such as in mountainous terrain or in areas with massive amounts of SAM assets. The enemy COULD pop out from just behind the mountain/hill in front of you, and force you to have to resort to short ranged (FOX 2) missiles or even guns. Still, though, this is not enough to prioritize extreme agility over stealth today. The F35 is more than agile enough for the few times this occurs, especially if there is a wingman around.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 4y ago
mshockwave 4y ago
And also the cost: F-35 sacrifices some stealth technologies (in comparison with F-22) in favor of a lower cost
Dalewyn 4y ago
>carrier landings for the Navy (F-22 cannot), A naval variant capable of carrier landings of the F-22 was considered by the US Navy but was ultimately not adopted. The airframe is definitely capable of it, if given sufficient military and political will.
- aynyc 4y ago
  I’m 90% certain the airframe needs modification to support naval operations. The modification is so costly and difficult that Navy saw no reason to buy F22.
pjmlp 4y ago
There are yet to exist, but I bet in a dogfight with AI armed drones, which don't have a human to suffer from G impact on crazier manouvers, it might end in another way. For example, lets see what Bayraktar MIUS will be doing.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The F-22 replacement, already well into development, is explicitly designed to operate in this world.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Ah, the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), thanks for pointing it out.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    As is the naval 6th gen project (confusingly, both projects are named “Next Generation Air Dominance”, but they are separate projects.)
cpursley 4y ago
The SU-57 would give an F-22 a real run for its money. But there’s only a handful of them.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  No one gives any credibility to the capabilities of the SU-57, lack of ability to produce them aside. Close up photos of the aircraft show that elementary features of a 5th generation aircraft are not implemented at all. It is basically a 4th gen aircraft dressed in 5th gen clothing. Its lack of stealth, for example, is well-known; it may be better than prior Soviet aircraft but orders of magnitude less stealthy than e.g. an F-35. Someone will eventually produce an aircraft to rival the 5th gen capabilities of the US, but it hasn’t been done yet. Every competitor so far has been theater. Meanwhile, the US is actively developing and testing 6th gen combat aircraft.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    Russian aircraft have never been focused on stealth.
    - jandrewrogers 4y ago
      They have poor sensor suites too. If everyone can see you before you can see them, you’re not going to survive no matter what other advantages you think you have.
      - cpursley 4y ago
        Yep, while Russia is good at engine and airframe design they are behind in terms of optics and stealth. But their are other advantages like maneuverability maintainability and cost to manufacture.
        XorNot 4y ago
        Literally all irrelevant if you get taken out in a BVR engagement by a less maneuverable plane you can't see (or by a missile coming off an F-15EX you do see, being spotted by the F-35 you don't).
paganel 4y ago
> It is designed more for ground assault type work, bombing runs, etc. The problem is: what exactly do you bomb? I.e. what is the battle-related purpose of this machine? Bombing tank formations would, of course, make sense, let's say if you encounter a formation of 10-15 tanks a F-35 sortie would make sense. But then the enemy adapts and starts only using tanks in "solitary", so to speak, or at most in "pairs". Does it make economic and operational sense to fly and risk a F-35 just to destroy two tanks? I don't know. The same goes for enemy artillery. Does it make economic sense to risk a F-35 sortie just to try and take out howitzers scattered over the entire front line? I think it doesn't, for example the Russians have been reasonably good at taking NATO-sent M777s just by using counter-artillery or Lancet suicide mini-drones (orders of magnitude cheaper than a F-35, excluding the opportunity costs of losing an airplane pilot's life). Of course, F-35s would be best in destroying civilian infrastructure related to the enemy's war effort behind the front-lines, stuff like power transmission units, bridges, railways etc, meaning what NATO did in Serbia in 1999 and what the Allies tried to do against Germany in WW2. But, again, it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles (the Russians have also proved that that is doable during the current war in Ukraine), ignoring the fact that it might not work (the Germans carried out producing war stuff until the early months of 1945, despite the very heavy aerial bombings). I think the US military has been the victim of its own success in the first Gulf War, when indeed air superiority allowed them to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait with almost no losses on the US side. But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.
- rnk 4y ago
  so we send f16s and f15s as appropriate for those tasks for which the risk is there for the f35? If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield, maybe preventing the us' billions in fighters from doing things?
  - paganel 4y ago
    > so we send f16s and f15s as appropriate for those tasks for which the risk is there for the f35? If I were an accountant for the US military, yes, I would do that. But, of course, things are a lot more complicated, because if they have built it they'll have to use it, you can't go in front of a Congressional budget commission and say that it doesn't make sense to use a F-35 when the F-16 can do the job just as fine, because they'll furiously ask you why did you need all that money for the F-35 in the first place. > If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield Could be. Either way, I think we haven't reached the "maximum" when it comes to the use of aerial drones in modern warfare, not by a long shot. Partly also because of institutional reasons, when you've spent so much money on a project like the F-35 you don't ask your best military minds to think too much about drones so that you could best employ them on the battlefield, you ask those bright minds to put the F-35 to use (because a general's future career prospects depend on it). This would only get alleviated by the US having to fight a real war, when, supposedly, those institutional motives would be overcome by the reality of war. About a possible US war against China I can't comment much because I don't know the situation in that geographic area all too well. It is my understanding though that the US is preparing for a war over the vast area of the Pacific, a repeat of their WW2-campaign if you wish, but I'm not sure China will fall into that trap. But this is pure unsubstantiated speculation from me, time will tell.

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.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> the F-35B (this one can do VTOL) The F-35B is STOVL (Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing), not VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing).

clouddrover 4y ago
The F-35B is capable of vertical takeoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY Lockheed Martin says of the video: "An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance."
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  This is not a combat functionality and would never be used in actual combat environment. F-35 is explicitly not a VTOL aircraft any more than a baseball is.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    So you agree with Lockheed Martin. Super.

raihansaputra 4y ago

F35B also has the hover capability. Its focus is to support in CAS (Close Air Support) roles, not necessarily doing hover support like helicopters, but STOVL capability needed to be stationed on temporary smaller airfields. AFAIK it's main use-case is to support the Marines.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

baron816 4y ago

My understanding is that dogfighting shouldn’t be a thing with the F-35. It’s not like in Top Gun where the pilot needs to align the plane with its target to shoot it down. The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on. That means they can shoot down someone that’s behind them. No acrobatics needed. The F-35 comes with a bunch of other technology that make it truly formidable. The cost has also come down substantially, so it’s probably the cheapest option out there as well.

mlyle 4y ago
We keep saying missiles are great and dogfighting is over, and we keep being proven wrong. Mind you, eventually this will be correct... just it's been declared prematurely for 60 years and so this still may not be the correct moment to say so. > The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on. Missile performance won't be equal in this case; if the enemy can launch missiles with higher pkill, well..
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  Dogfighting has been over for advanced militaries for a couple decades now. It isn’t the 1970s. The BVR kill probabilities are approaching unity.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    I agree with your main sentiment. There are niches for WVR combat, though, such as in mountainous terrain or in areas with massive amounts of SAM assets. The enemy COULD pop out from just behind the mountain/hill in front of you, and force you to have to resort to short ranged (FOX 2) missiles or even guns. Still, though, this is not enough to prioritize extreme agility over stealth today. The F35 is more than agile enough for the few times this occurs, especially if there is a wingman around.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 4y ago

mshockwave 4y ago

And also the cost: F-35 sacrifices some stealth technologies (in comparison with F-22) in favor of a lower cost

Dalewyn 4y ago

>carrier landings for the Navy (F-22 cannot), A naval variant capable of carrier landings of the F-22 was considered by the US Navy but was ultimately not adopted. The airframe is definitely capable of it, if given sufficient military and political will.

aynyc 4y ago
I’m 90% certain the airframe needs modification to support naval operations. The modification is so costly and difficult that Navy saw no reason to buy F22.

pjmlp 4y ago

There are yet to exist, but I bet in a dogfight with AI armed drones, which don't have a human to suffer from G impact on crazier manouvers, it might end in another way. For example, lets see what Bayraktar MIUS will be doing.

jandrewrogers 4y ago
The F-22 replacement, already well into development, is explicitly designed to operate in this world.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Ah, the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), thanks for pointing it out.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  As is the naval 6th gen project (confusingly, both projects are named “Next Generation Air Dominance”, but they are separate projects.)

cpursley 4y ago

The SU-57 would give an F-22 a real run for its money. But there’s only a handful of them.

jandrewrogers 4y ago
No one gives any credibility to the capabilities of the SU-57, lack of ability to produce them aside. Close up photos of the aircraft show that elementary features of a 5th generation aircraft are not implemented at all. It is basically a 4th gen aircraft dressed in 5th gen clothing. Its lack of stealth, for example, is well-known; it may be better than prior Soviet aircraft but orders of magnitude less stealthy than e.g. an F-35. Someone will eventually produce an aircraft to rival the 5th gen capabilities of the US, but it hasn’t been done yet. Every competitor so far has been theater. Meanwhile, the US is actively developing and testing 6th gen combat aircraft.
- cpursley 4y ago
  Russian aircraft have never been focused on stealth.
  - jandrewrogers 4y ago
    They have poor sensor suites too. If everyone can see you before you can see them, you’re not going to survive no matter what other advantages you think you have.
    - cpursley 4y ago
      Yep, while Russia is good at engine and airframe design they are behind in terms of optics and stealth. But their are other advantages like maneuverability maintainability and cost to manufacture.
      - XorNot 4y ago
        Literally all irrelevant if you get taken out in a BVR engagement by a less maneuverable plane you can't see (or by a missile coming off an F-15EX you do see, being spotted by the F-35 you don't).

paganel 4y ago

> It is designed more for ground assault type work, bombing runs, etc. The problem is: what exactly do you bomb? I.e. what is the battle-related purpose of this machine? Bombing tank formations would, of course, make sense, let's say if you encounter a formation of 10-15 tanks a F-35 sortie would make sense. But then the enemy adapts and starts only using tanks in "solitary", so to speak, or at most in "pairs". Does it make economic and operational sense to fly and risk a F-35 just to destroy two tanks? I don't know. The same goes for enemy artillery. Does it make economic sense to risk a F-35 sortie just to try and take out howitzers scattered over the entire front line? I think it doesn't, for example the Russians have been reasonably good at taking NATO-sent M777s just by using counter-artillery or Lancet suicide mini-drones (orders of magnitude cheaper than a F-35, excluding the opportunity costs of losing an airplane pilot's life). Of course, F-35s would be best in destroying civilian infrastructure related to the enemy's war effort behind the front-lines, stuff like power transmission units, bridges, railways etc, meaning what NATO did in Serbia in 1999 and what the Allies tried to do against Germany in WW2. But, again, it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles (the Russians have also proved that that is doable during the current war in Ukraine), ignoring the fact that it might not work (the Germans carried out producing war stuff until the early months of 1945, despite the very heavy aerial bombings). I think the US military has been the victim of its own success in the first Gulf War, when indeed air superiority allowed them to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait with almost no losses on the US side. But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.

rnk 4y ago
so we send f16s and f15s as appropriate for those tasks for which the risk is there for the f35? If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield, maybe preventing the us' billions in fighters from doing things?
- paganel 4y ago
  > so we send f16s and f15s as appropriate for those tasks for which the risk is there for the f35? If I were an accountant for the US military, yes, I would do that. But, of course, things are a lot more complicated, because if they have built it they'll have to use it, you can't go in front of a Congressional budget commission and say that it doesn't make sense to use a F-35 when the F-16 can do the job just as fine, because they'll furiously ask you why did you need all that money for the F-35 in the first place. > If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield Could be. Either way, I think we haven't reached the "maximum" when it comes to the use of aerial drones in modern warfare, not by a long shot. Partly also because of institutional reasons, when you've spent so much money on a project like the F-35 you don't ask your best military minds to think too much about drones so that you could best employ them on the battlefield, you ask those bright minds to put the F-35 to use (because a general's future career prospects depend on it). This would only get alleviated by the US having to fight a real war, when, supposedly, those institutional motives would be overcome by the reality of war. About a possible US war against China I can't comment much because I don't know the situation in that geographic area all too well. It is my understanding though that the US is preparing for a war over the vast area of the Pacific, a repeat of their WW2-campaign if you wish, but I'm not sure China will fall into that trap. But this is pure unsubstantiated speculation from me, time will tell.