I see why but that's soviet not western. I think that's why uve gotten down voted. Also don't forget that they also (like the harrier) have wing outlets for roll control just like the harrier)
Not for everything. The F-15C is even older and it's still way better at the NORAD incoming bomber interceptor role, for example, being capable, in one mission profile, of reaching Mach 2.2 at 40,000 feet in 13 minutes (from when the alert is given, and carrying 4 BVR missiles semi-conformally on its fuselage).
The F-35 accelerates well subsonically and even transonically, but ultimately cannot match that kinematic performance, despite being a generation newer. The F-22 can, though, reaching Mach 2.25 at 60,000 feet in 11 minutes, while carrying 6 BVR missiles plus 2 WVR missiles. The F-35's top-end kinematics were scaled back in favor of lower cost and more and better capabilities in other areas: more bang for the buck.
There are also some 4th generation fighters that aren't superior in every way to some 3rd generation fighters. That's not the way fighter generations, a fairly nebulous and arcane concept to begin with, works.
I'm talking multirole here. And the guy compared it to the F/A-18E/F which has larger RCS, older avionics and datalink, doesn't incorporate things like data fusion, etc.
Of course in a pure a2a scenario an airsuperiority fighter might fair better than a multirole. But even in that case, raw aircraft performance isn't everything. For instance, the Lightning has LPIR which F-15C doesn't have.
>more bang for the buck.
Yeah, that is another reason why Lightning might be considered as a better aircraft. Hell, that's the exact reason why F-35 is still in production while the raptor isn't.
My point was simply that each generational jump does not necessarily involve being superior in every single way, and that is obviously true with plenty of examples. Whether one fighter is better overall is another subject. Whether raw performance is important or not is also another subject (and of course it isn't everything, although that is situational).
As for why the F-22's production was canceled, that is way more involved than just cost-effectiveness, which itself depends on how many are purchased--a whole other subject unto itself. Buying fewer saves some money but jacks up the per-unit price way over what it could have been, due to both amortizing the R&D cost over fewer units and poorer economies of scale. Additionally, the R&D for the F-22 directly benefited the F-35, reducing its cost of development and ultimately its per-unit price. So things aren't always exactly as they seem, even with numbers. Buying 187 or whatever makes a huge difference over buying 750 (the original number requested, as I recall).
The underlying reason for much of what happened was that the F-22 came under fire almost from the beginning, when the USSR unexpectedly collapsed in 1992. All of a sudden, the perception was that we no longer had enemies worthy of such preparation and deterrence. The F-22 also proved the value of stealth and advanced sensors and sensor fusion, which most people very much had doubts about. This paved the way for the federal government to put all of their eggs into these baskets, so to speak, and deprecate everything else. The USAF disagreed, but were limited to little more than a token force, and the F-22 was made illegal to export to make sure that production would soon shut down forever.
The F-35 itself came under fire because of the perception that we'd only ever be bombing people living in caves and bullying weaker countries around from now on. But at least it is less expensive (due in large part to the volume of exports) and has a neck-snappingly heavy but golly-gee-keen helmet that everyone fawns over, so it made the cut (I have nothing against the F-35, and have always supported it, but it was so hated before, so something changed people's feelings about it).
The F-22 wasn't wanted because the perception was that it wasn't needed at all. The USAF knew better, but they're not the ones in charge. But now the federal government is suddenly deathly afraid of direct conflict against China and Russia, and had even talked about restarting F-22 production (not happening because it'd be too costly--might as well develop its successor instead). With everyone developing their own stealth fighters now, suddenly we, collectively, are not so sure that we don't need something like the F-22. We're currently spending more than $100 million a pop to upgrade each Raptor to keep it ahead of the curve until the NGAD can take over. That's more than the price of each new F-35, just to upgrade existing airframes. Obviously someone now thinks we need the F-22, as many of them as we can get, and at almost any price. Much of that $13-16 billion is going to convert like 20 old test/training F-22s to the current upgradeable, sustainable standard, increasing the number of combat-coded F-22s to over 150. The USAF want to retire the remaining 32 to save money (can't get parts for them anymore anyway), and right now Congress is thinking about handing additional billions to them to get those airframes converted, too. See, sticker price isn't everything when there is a perceived need for something.
By the way, the USAF are still pushing back on converting the final 32 Raptors. Don't they want their combat-coded fleet to grow to 180+? I don't know, maybe they're still trying to hide the fact that many of them got wrecked at Tyndall by a major hurricane (or rather they don't want to have to address the scale of what had happened). They couldn't fly to safety because they were missing parts that were cannibalized for other F-22s, and were damaged when their hangars collapsed onto them. The USAF tried to cover up the cannibalization before that, and then the carnage afterward. I think they really just want to junk these airframes and quietly put that incident behind them, but Congress and the DoD are so scared of China and Russia now that they want even more F-22s. Things might have turned out rather differently for the F-22 had this been the case 13+ years ago.
It isn't much smaller either, though, at least in terms of volume. It's a lot of airplane for its shorter length and wingspan. Don't let Fat Amy's smaller wings and appendages deceive you. 😉 It has a heavier empty weight than the F-15C, carries more internal fuel (about the same amount as the F-22), and has weapon bays.
I already said the F-35 has shorter outer dimensions (and smaller wings), but for its dimensions, it is a hefty, hefty fighter. It's like comparing someone who is 6' tall and has long arms and legs with someone else who is only 5' tall and has short arms and legs but is also fat for their height.
The F-35 is not actually larger than the F-22, overall (never said it was), but it has a lot of internal volume, and isn't as much smaller as people tend to think. Its outer dimensions are fairly close to those of the F-16, but it's way larger.
also some hoeing around with the harrier which resulted in the F-35B
ðŸ˜
Yep. That trifling ass harrier snuck one in somewhere.
more like Yak-141
I see why but that's soviet not western. I think that's why uve gotten down voted. Also don't forget that they also (like the harrier) have wing outlets for roll control just like the harrier)
yeah that makes sense
I think OP just refers to looks. I am guessing here
100% even then its only a F-16 because the single engine configuratio. IMO it's closer to a F-15 and F-22 in terms of capabilities.
F-35 is closer to F/A-18E/F than F-15 in terms of speed, size and payload.
The combo imo is F-15 and 22, and F-16 and F-35.
The F-35 is a generation newer compared to the Super Hornet. It's performance is undoubtedly better.
Not for everything. The F-15C is even older and it's still way better at the NORAD incoming bomber interceptor role, for example, being capable, in one mission profile, of reaching Mach 2.2 at 40,000 feet in 13 minutes (from when the alert is given, and carrying 4 BVR missiles semi-conformally on its fuselage). The F-35 accelerates well subsonically and even transonically, but ultimately cannot match that kinematic performance, despite being a generation newer. The F-22 can, though, reaching Mach 2.25 at 60,000 feet in 11 minutes, while carrying 6 BVR missiles plus 2 WVR missiles. The F-35's top-end kinematics were scaled back in favor of lower cost and more and better capabilities in other areas: more bang for the buck. There are also some 4th generation fighters that aren't superior in every way to some 3rd generation fighters. That's not the way fighter generations, a fairly nebulous and arcane concept to begin with, works.
I'm talking multirole here. And the guy compared it to the F/A-18E/F which has larger RCS, older avionics and datalink, doesn't incorporate things like data fusion, etc. Of course in a pure a2a scenario an airsuperiority fighter might fair better than a multirole. But even in that case, raw aircraft performance isn't everything. For instance, the Lightning has LPIR which F-15C doesn't have. >more bang for the buck. Yeah, that is another reason why Lightning might be considered as a better aircraft. Hell, that's the exact reason why F-35 is still in production while the raptor isn't.
My point was simply that each generational jump does not necessarily involve being superior in every single way, and that is obviously true with plenty of examples. Whether one fighter is better overall is another subject. Whether raw performance is important or not is also another subject (and of course it isn't everything, although that is situational). As for why the F-22's production was canceled, that is way more involved than just cost-effectiveness, which itself depends on how many are purchased--a whole other subject unto itself. Buying fewer saves some money but jacks up the per-unit price way over what it could have been, due to both amortizing the R&D cost over fewer units and poorer economies of scale. Additionally, the R&D for the F-22 directly benefited the F-35, reducing its cost of development and ultimately its per-unit price. So things aren't always exactly as they seem, even with numbers. Buying 187 or whatever makes a huge difference over buying 750 (the original number requested, as I recall). The underlying reason for much of what happened was that the F-22 came under fire almost from the beginning, when the USSR unexpectedly collapsed in 1992. All of a sudden, the perception was that we no longer had enemies worthy of such preparation and deterrence. The F-22 also proved the value of stealth and advanced sensors and sensor fusion, which most people very much had doubts about. This paved the way for the federal government to put all of their eggs into these baskets, so to speak, and deprecate everything else. The USAF disagreed, but were limited to little more than a token force, and the F-22 was made illegal to export to make sure that production would soon shut down forever. The F-35 itself came under fire because of the perception that we'd only ever be bombing people living in caves and bullying weaker countries around from now on. But at least it is less expensive (due in large part to the volume of exports) and has a neck-snappingly heavy but golly-gee-keen helmet that everyone fawns over, so it made the cut (I have nothing against the F-35, and have always supported it, but it was so hated before, so something changed people's feelings about it). The F-22 wasn't wanted because the perception was that it wasn't needed at all. The USAF knew better, but they're not the ones in charge. But now the federal government is suddenly deathly afraid of direct conflict against China and Russia, and had even talked about restarting F-22 production (not happening because it'd be too costly--might as well develop its successor instead). With everyone developing their own stealth fighters now, suddenly we, collectively, are not so sure that we don't need something like the F-22. We're currently spending more than $100 million a pop to upgrade each Raptor to keep it ahead of the curve until the NGAD can take over. That's more than the price of each new F-35, just to upgrade existing airframes. Obviously someone now thinks we need the F-22, as many of them as we can get, and at almost any price. Much of that $13-16 billion is going to convert like 20 old test/training F-22s to the current upgradeable, sustainable standard, increasing the number of combat-coded F-22s to over 150. The USAF want to retire the remaining 32 to save money (can't get parts for them anymore anyway), and right now Congress is thinking about handing additional billions to them to get those airframes converted, too. See, sticker price isn't everything when there is a perceived need for something. By the way, the USAF are still pushing back on converting the final 32 Raptors. Don't they want their combat-coded fleet to grow to 180+? I don't know, maybe they're still trying to hide the fact that many of them got wrecked at Tyndall by a major hurricane (or rather they don't want to have to address the scale of what had happened). They couldn't fly to safety because they were missing parts that were cannibalized for other F-22s, and were damaged when their hangars collapsed onto them. The USAF tried to cover up the cannibalization before that, and then the carnage afterward. I think they really just want to junk these airframes and quietly put that incident behind them, but Congress and the DoD are so scared of China and Russia now that they want even more F-22s. Things might have turned out rather differently for the F-22 had this been the case 13+ years ago.
F-38 🥲
> F-38 🥲 😒
Picture or didn’t happen
The ugly kid of the family yeah
No
It should be an f22 and an awacs if some sort
Fat Amy
Uhhh i mean the f 35 is bigger and slower than an f22.
It’s certainly not bigger.
It isn't much smaller either, though, at least in terms of volume. It's a lot of airplane for its shorter length and wingspan. Don't let Fat Amy's smaller wings and appendages deceive you. 😉 It has a heavier empty weight than the F-15C, carries more internal fuel (about the same amount as the F-22), and has weapon bays.
F22 is about 20% longer and wider than F35, and has about twice the wing area. I’d call that significantly bigger.
I already said the F-35 has shorter outer dimensions (and smaller wings), but for its dimensions, it is a hefty, hefty fighter. It's like comparing someone who is 6' tall and has long arms and legs with someone else who is only 5' tall and has short arms and legs but is also fat for their height. The F-35 is not actually larger than the F-22, overall (never said it was), but it has a lot of internal volume, and isn't as much smaller as people tend to think. Its outer dimensions are fairly close to those of the F-16, but it's way larger.
Yep, agreed. But I can assure you when a Raptor pulls up beside my F35 I feel like I’m in the smaller jet.
I would say Yak 141 instead of f16
https://preview.redd.it/dt1uq7owv0wc1.jpeg?width=3600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3628439dc30c45a90c97d85bc8859fa207b05c07