None of that makes it better. The F-22 has to penetrate because it can't engage. The F-35 can suppress and destroy enemy air defences making penetration redundant.
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
I would disagree. This is actuall an inferior situation, as most targets are at least somewhat time sensetive. If you have to spend time suppressing the IADS, you may lose the window of opportunity. Also in many cases GBAD density will be high enough that if bypassing it entirely is an option, it is a better option. The simple example is the F-117 strike against Baghdad, which penetrated the Iraqi IADS, instead of having to suppress it, the way F-16s, or F-15Es would have to.
It would also mean that the F-22 can choose whether to engage the IADS or not, while the F-35 is forced to commit itself to full-on SEAD and DEAD, before it can even begin the main strike mission. I understand that your comment comes in a contextual manner, where most countries that have F-35's will be fighting 3rd world hell-holes, rather then countries with peer capability, and in such a situation; in most cases the F-35's footprint will be small enough to go unnoticed in the first place. Undoubtedly the F-35 is a better strike aircraft then the F-22. But that does not 1) deprive the F-22 of it's multirole capabilities (which is ultimately what the point is) and 2) does not mean it is superior strike platform in every situation.
What if the F-35 can suppress GBAD through non-kinetic means? (Which it can.) By combining stealth, EA, high endurance it can work its way through GBAD coverage in a safer way than the charging F-22. It can also engage if need be rather than turn and run away (mission kill) which is what the supercruise capability gives the F-22. Also the capability of the F-22 to penetrate may be fine on paper but since its radius at supercruise is so limited (the last 100 NM of a 400 NM radius mission) it can't penetrate through much.
And here we are dealing with a rather minor distinction. The difference in question isn't even qualitative, it's quantitative. You're essentially suggesting that the F-35 also has penetration potential. Absolutely correct. You are then suggesting that the F-35 has greater penetration potential then an F-22. I don't have enough information to make the judgement call. Do you?
EDIT: To clarify I initially though you meant proper SEAD and DEAD when you talked about the F-35. But it seems to me that what you're talking about isn't true suppression, as (I'm assuming were dealing with the IADS of a peer power, or at least a comparable power) the F-35 can not truly suppress an IADS with non-kinetic means. It can only navigate it's way through it like you're suggesting. Suppression would imply that the IADS no longer forms a coherent network that effectively control the airspace.
So... the F-22 CAN disengage, if need be, while the F-35 can't..... is that what you're saying? Or rather that the F-22 has a better chance of disengaging successfully should it have to? How is that a disadvantage of the F-22? If anything it's an advantage. It doesn't decrease it's penetration potential, but if penetration becomes impossible (or unnecessary) for whatever reason, it can disengage much easier.
Does it need to be supercruising when it's trying to penetrate an IADS?
You seem to be making several leaps of logic. I'm assuming one of two things 1) you're can't make the claims you're making in a valid manner 2) you know something I don't (a whole lot of somethings actually). If it's two, please share what you can. Because right now you're basically making a judgement call that I don't believe there is enough declassified information for us to make.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I didn't say it was better, just that on some occasions it will be the superior choice to address a specific set of circumstances. The two platforms are complementary in the strike role.
By the time F-35A reaches squadron service i have no doubt that the F-22A will be able to employ EA at greater range than the F-35, due to the higher power output of the AN/APG-77. The same tools are there. The AN/APG-79 will be able to as well by that time i have no doubt. Thus EA is a moot point.
In any case the F-22A should indeed be able to engage threat systems, the AN/ALR-94 is more than capable enough to detect and geo-locate the threat EM source, SAR generated by the AN/APG-77 will be comparable in quality to EO IR systems, and SDB II has a stand off, MTK capability. With that combination of sensors and weapons the F-22A will be able to detect, fix and engage GBAD threats quite effectively.
In real terms the F-22A will be able to employ the same tactics as an F-35A, and if need be get closer to threat systems due to higher RCS reduction. If it is detected be able to further reduce the detection to engagement window due to its sustained kinetic performance, something the F-35A cant do to the same degree. Now the F-22A will never have the same level of flexibility as the F-35, but on some occasions the F-22A will be more suited to (and more survivable in) a particular threat environment.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sorry mate, there were a few in there.
EM: Electromagnetic
EA: Electronic Attack (non kinetic means of suppression)
SAR: Synthetic Aperture Radar (generating clear images of targets and terrain features from the radar).
For anyone else who's curious.
SDB II: Second generation GBU-40/42 Small Diameter Bomb
MTK: Moving Target Kill capability
RWR: Radar Warning Receiver
EO IR: Electro Optical Infra Red
RCS: Radar Cross Section
GBAD: Ground Based Air Defense
I guess so, but i don't just mean detect. Any old RWR will detect a hot radar and generate a threat bearing. Advanced ESM/RWR like the AN/ALR-94 have the ability to triangulate the EM source's position in 3 dimensions, "geo-locating" the threat (generating a point on a map). I wanted to make that distinction. That allows the platform to detect and fix the threat passively, curing the much more precise radar to do the targeting, and the SDB II to do the killing. That combined with the soon to be introduced EA, and the F-22A will have hard kill and soft kill options when facing an IADS, in addition to kinetic performance that would test any SAM. Its a formidable capability.
I'm sorry when I said detect, I meant provide targetting data to. I understand that when you said geo-locate, it implies that there is more then just detection involved.
What kinda of EA options are going to be added to the F-22?
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Well, the RCS between the F-22 and F-35 are not that far apart. Regardless, as has been stated over and over the F-22 is mainly a Air Superiority Fighter and the F-35 a Strike Fighter. Also, considering the very limited numbers available of the Raptor in the first place. I doubt the USAF will spend a lot of money and resources to turn the F-22 into anything near the capabilities of the F-35 in the strike role. As a matter of fact the only reason the current Raptor has even limited strike capabilities. Was because of the early retirement of F-117 and until the F-35 entered service.............
I just wanted to add the common knowledge that the aircraft in quesiton can detect the hot radars long before they can detect and act according to the type of mission he is in. By geo-locating them roughly the pilot has a usually quite a few options on his table. Keeping his various RCSs he could avoid detection, abort, strike or let strike.
This poses the enemy in difficult tactical position. By hiding and lighting up his radar systems only sparingly (an electronic shoot and scoot) he has a far higher chance to preserve his capabilites but must be extremly lucky to get a lock on a stealth fighter. After a short scan he must accordingly move out of position into a new, prepared one to hide and to resurface again. This movement is more likely to give away his position to the recon assets of the enemy than being hidden in a camouflaged position.
If the enemy keeps his assets scanning the sky the expose themselves to a quick and accurate counterstrike or enables the attacking aircrafts to avoid them. A very bad place to be in for the defending forces.
Fundamentally, what you've described is how F-117 and Weasel mission cycles were planned and conducted.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
No worries.
Thats classified AFAIK. However last year I read a report in AFM on the Raptor's on exercise, in which the author claimed that the F-22A pilots were prohibited from employing advanced EA features of its ECM suite. So its quite possible the F-22A already has an EA capability. In any case all third gen US AESA radars should be capable of producing EA effects once the software package is installed, and the AN/APG-77 is physically larger than the AN/APG-81, and many of the advances made in array technology during the development of the AN/APG-79 & 81 have been incorporated in the 77, so generically the AN/APG-77 should be a more capable tool for application of ECM.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Again this is classified, but it is my understanding that there is an order of magnitude of difference i.e. F-35A = ~.001 F-22A = ~.0001
This may mean a difference of a dozen or two miles in detection radius.
It is my understanding that the F-22A has the smallest RCS of any maned platform flying today.
True, but in real terms that statement detracts nothing from its ability as a striker, you yourself point out it has replaced the F-117 thus it must be able to fulfill its role of dedicated strike. Whatever everyone calls the platform it is a capable striker in some circumstances.
They don't have to. The F-22A will never be as capable throughout the spectrum of A2G work as the F-35A, as I stated earlier it will never be as flexible a platform. However with a couple of software upgrades and the already planned introduction of the GBU-40/42, the F-22A will add MTK capability to its already formidable HVT (high value targets) strategic strike capability. As I stated in the post you are quoting, for heavily defended HVT with a formidable IADS to contend with, the F-22A would be the superior and more survivable choice (of course with F-35A SEAD/DEAD support).
Well AFAIK LM was working on JDAM integration long before the F-117 fleet was retired, and i don't think the F-22A fleet will hand over the role to the F-35A when it arrives. So clearly this has been planed for some time. The F-22A is more than capable of taking up most of the F-117's responsibilities, the only deficiency i can see is the inability to carry the Mk 84 warhead internally, whch would be needed for some hardened targets.
The fact is the F-22A IS a very capable strategic striker, even if everyone refers to it as an air dominance fighter.
Let's take a closer look at exactly what we are talking about.
Penetration strikes may have a couple of mission objectives.
- Getting to the target is the prime issue. Engagement along the way of forces should be avoided.
- Surprise may be critical. If you come in all ‘guns a-blazing’, you will alert the forces in the target area and increase the chance of a mission failure.
- Steel on target. Depending on the target, large warheads or penetrators may be required.
- Threat zones are cone-shaped. A particular SAM and AAA site affects a cone-shaped zone with the smallest area near the ground and a larger area the higher you go (up to the max of the AAA or SAM).
Let’s look how the F-22 achieves the above.
- The F-22 does have a higher top-end speed than the F-35, but this is not necessarily a good thing. It is important if the target is time-sensitive. But, it severely limits the range of the F-22 and super-cruising announces it’s presences with a sonic boom. In either case, the F-35 will have longer legs. This is amplified if the target is not near a F-22 base and can be prosecuted using the F-35C from a carrier.
- The only sensor the F-22 can use at night is the added SAR modes of it’s radar. Going active with it’s SAR radar is detrimental to it’s survival if it is trying to achieve surprise (#2 above).
The F-35, OTOH, has EOTS and DAS, combined with the HMD, gives it SUPERB Situational Awareness (SA) in both the ingress and egress routes. It achieves this while never going active. When it does go active with SAR, it has better modes than the F-22 where SAR is concerned.
When engaged by AAA or SAMs along the way, the F-35s better SA gives it a better chance of survival.
In addition to SA, the F-35 has better 2-way communications capability than the F-22.
When engaged by AAA or SAMs along the way, the F-35s better SA gives it a better chance of survival.
In addition to SA, the F-35 has better 2-way communications capability than the F-22.
- Warload. This is possibly the one area where the F-35 completely outshines the F-22. The maximum that the F-22 can carry is a 1000lb JDAM, it’s not even a penetrators at that. While it can carry SDBs, they have a limited value against larger targets, targets with multiple rooms, or targets under multiple layers. IIRC, the SDB does not have a void sensing fuse.
The F-35, OTOH, carries a dedicated 2000 lb penetrator weapon (the BLU-109B based GBU-31). It has a void-sensing fuse that can detonate after penetrating a certain number of per-determined layers. It will cause a much larger amount of damage due to it’s 525+ lbs of explosive vs the SDB’s 50lbs. Even if the GBU-31 does not fully penetrate, the large warhead will have a greater chance of still causing a great amount of damage to the structure and it’s contents.
The other area in which the F-35’s warload is superior is LGBs. The F-22 just can’t do it. With some future upgrade, sure… but right now it can’t. When absolute accuracy is needed, nothing beats a LGB.
All this being said, the question remains that if I had to pick one fighter to name as the “Best Penetrator”, I have to go with the F-35. I am not saying that the F-35 will outperform the F-22 in every scenario, just most of them. It’s RCS is small enough (B-2 class) and it’s SA good enough that it can pick and choose it’s ingress and egress routes with virtual impunity. When surprise GBAD assets popup, it has a better chance of detecting them and dealing with those assets than the F-22. When it arrives at the target, it can prosecute the target with a greater variety, and more powerful, selection of weapons than the F-22.
If the IADS is a true network, then the threat areas of various systems will overlap quite profusely, with multiple redundancy in key areas. There will also be radar coverage of all, or almost all, of the airspace in question. A properly layered IADS, on wartime footing, with multiple airborne assets, even when it's a generation behind in terms of fighters, can still do a lot to stop or make trouble for a penetration strike. The very fact that it exists already means that your mission has to be planned very carefully.
Electronic Attack (EA) as part of Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) is very different to SEAD/DEAD EA. The F-22's ECM suite is for Electronic Warfare Self Protection (EWSP) ie stopping R-77 missiles from engaging.
To turn the F-22's AESA into a big EA (and ESM/ELINT Electronic Support Measures/Electronic Intelligence) system is possible but requires a lot of software code. The F-22's software isn't ready enough to allow it to be deployed. I very much doubt they will be able to code an EA system for it. The problem is the F-22 uses computer language that isn't supported by enough of the industry to write these huge programs without huge cost and gathering together every machine code writer on the US West Coast... The F-35 and Block II Super Hornet are coded in C++ so its much easier to develop their EA software. Which BTW are funded projects as opposed to F-22 wishful thinking.
Which is another thing that the F-22 fan club selectively ignores. The F-22 has less opportunity in its upgrade path due to architecture (engineering and computational) limits - it's why the JSF has a far better future and why we're not even remotely interested in the F-22.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sure.
A few points here.
- A sonic boom is useless as an early warning indicator or targeting device. In any case if the F-35 goes supersonic it will betray itself in the same manner. This is the 21st century.
- Everyone assumes that because you have a true supercruise capability, you have to either use it for the majority of the mission or not at all. The F-22A can use supercruise in the same manner as other platforms use supersonic sprint, but at a fraction of the fuel cost.
- The range issue is wholly subjective. Due to the F-22A's smaller RCS and ability to supercruise, it can gen get much closer to threat systems, and thus fly a straighter path to the target. The F-35A on the other hand will have to take a windier path, negating the range advantage. Anyway in real terms range only really determines reliance on AAR, not ability to put weapons on target.
I think your doing two things here, fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of SAR scans, and then making a significant leap of logic based on that misunderstanding.
- When a platform makes an SAR scan it generates a very narrow EM beam for ~2 seconds. What that means is the only thing that will detect the active SAR is the unit being painted, and they only have a couple of seconds to do it. Thus the (lets say) SAM battery may detect a fleeting EM source, which it can not detect or track on radar, and in a matter of seconds to minuets a weapon will impact. Assuming the SAM battery has very capable ESM. Thus in real terms the F-22A betrays nothing by using SAR, except giving the crew the option to abandon their posts and run.
- The F-35A's EOTS will only work if weather permits it, if there is mid or low cloud cover (which there is over large tracts of the earth at any one time) which the F-35A will have to get under in order to use EOTS to target the threat. By doing that the F-35 will have to get very close to the threat system, while remaining in line of sight. That, given the platforms RCS would likely put the platform within the detection and tract radii of the threat. That means the SAM will likely be able to detect, track and engage the F-35 while its attempting passively engage the SAM, not good and realistically not gonna happen. Thus in real terms the F-35A driver will use SAR whenever the weather does not permit EOTS from high altitude.
- EO DAS is actually a development of the F-22A's MAWS, it just provides the ability to project IIR imagery to the pilot and target A2A missiles. Therefore in this scenario, dealing with GBAD threats, EO DAS will only provide a slight improvement over the MAWS. IF the GBAD system itself is close enough for the EO DAS to see they your in trouble, and if there is a missile launch the only difference is the pilot will be able to see an IIR image of it (the MAWS will still provide a threat bearing). The HMD is planed to be integrated on the F-22A in time. The only real difference in 2020 SA will be the EOTS, which will not provide any real additional benefits over SAR when targeting J series weapons.
- better two way comms are not really relevant in this scenario, as any asset penetrating a IADS will have stringent EMCON procedures in place. Thus this is a moot point.
Using SAR will not betray your position in any meaningful way.
I stated this earlier. However the 1000lb JDAM is capable enough for the majority of strategic HVT's, its only the hardened stuff that you need a 2000lb+ weapon, which is B2's breakfast anyway. Have you seen a 1000lb detonation? Its enough to level any unhardened building and then some.
SBD has a delayed fuse for penetrating.
Anyway i think you're starting to miss the point here. I never claimed the F-22A was a better or more capable strike platform, just that in a certain set of circumstances the F-22A will be a better choice for the target and threat environment than the F-35. If you have a handed, well defended HVT to hit and the F-22A cant do it, thats what the B-2's are for. All these platforms are complementary.
"With some future upgrade"? So your comparing the F-22A of today and the F-35A of 2015~2020 (i.e. the F-35A only exists as a test program)? Not a very apt comparison is it?
AFAIK there is space and weight allocated for the integration of sniper for internal carriage on the F-22A, thus making EOTS a moot point.
J series still give ~3m accuracy, thus for the vast majority of targets providing ~1m accuracy is a moot point, because ~3m is plenty. The only real advantage LGB's hold over J series weapons is the ability to engage moving targets, which SDB II will provide the F-22A with anyway.
Then you actually agree with me (perhaps you should have examined what i was saying before replying), in some scenarios when you are facing ultra high end IADS, with extremely capable GBAD around the target, and 1000lb weapon will suffice, the F-22A will bore more survivable and more likely to succeed due to its significantly smaller RCS and kinematic performance. In a whole range of other scenario's an F-35A or B-2 would be the superior choice.
By the way you don't go to a target with a "variety" of weapons, you make a decision on platform and weapon combination in order to produce the appropriate effects on a specific target.
With the addition of a HMD to the F-22A i don't see the difference in SA being that much, especially when dealing with GBAD. The only major difference is EOTS and IIR imagery generated by EO DAS. IMO none of this outweighs the kinematic performance the F-22A enjoys, i.e. even if a threat engages the F-22A, the missile will have a very hard time maintaining the intercept track. Additionally the threat EM source will have to be much closer to the F-22A to detect or track it than the F-35A. These are elements the F-35A can not make up ground on (unless you fundamentally re design the platform).
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sorry mate, but lets not go down that road again. This conversation has nothing to do with the F-22A in the RAAF, not even implicitly.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I understand the difference between EWSP and EA, that should be evident in the names of the various systems. The report i read clearly state EA rather than EWSP. I'll try and dig it up.
The point i was making is there are no fundamental limitations in the array design AFAIK.
As for the software, I understand the difference in coding, and that software can not be easily adapted from the Rhino of F-35. However i think your overestimating the difficulty and cost. (I know I'm probably going to get a lecture on how hard it is to develop such complex software, and again I'm aware of that. The point is whether the substantial cost will be worth the substantial benefit), considering the F-22A already has extremely complex code written for the operation of LPI modes and SAR modes under development, i don't think writing EA software packages is as unreasonable as you portray.
I suppose AIM-9X BII and JHMCS/HMD are simply "wishful thinking" as well?
Technically you may be right, perhaps the F-22A of 2020 will be no different to today, using AIM-9L/M's and 15 year old radar modes and information management tech. But personally i don't think thats very likely even if the upgrades are not funded as yet.
Given the potential effect EA will have on the battle space, i would be astonished if the F-22A is not given such a capability, even at considerable cost.
- Status