armage said:
I’m just wondering do the JSF and F/A-22 use some of the same electronic suite and which would win in a fight?
I put down the F-35 and let me tell you why.
First off, there will likely never be an 'X vs. Y' engagement because the Raptor is so expensive that even Clinton's promise to the Israeli's looks to be reneggable (especially as they have yet to ask) and the Saudi's are themselves looking more for a replacement for their F-5E and IDS fleets than they are for Air Superiority. Japan could afford them but their own F-2A program has left them with an incomplete training and fighter weapons school capability as well F-4EJKai units that should have long since been disbanded or replaced.
Without much hope for export sales the likelihood of a U.S. software controlled platform meeting a USAF asset in more than a LOMD session over some instrumented range is low. Simply because whoever chose to break the faith would be doing so on the realization that we would know, /exactly/ how their radar worked and from what aspects and bands their VLO was less than effective.
Secondly, there is NO reason to assume that a Raptor which can pole-out it's missiles from 50% as far (AIM-120D that's 60-80nm vs. 30-40 for the F-35) and indeed has THREE TIMES as many likely BVR dual-shot salvoes would be in anyway 'approachable' by it's opponent: 1v.1.
Or even 1v.2 which is the absolute minimum section/element doctrine in use at this time (Flight and Division tactics still being preferred for total radar shot dominance and sensor volumization coverage).
It would take one extended range shot (using offboard guidance cue from a lowband APY-2 or equivalent GCI datalink source) and then evaluate and reengage on a cleanup basis before separating and, if need be, reengaging from /another/ (my WEZ is longer than yours) setup. Particularly with the post-C7 AMRAAM offering fully capable 2-way digital datalinks; the reality is that Shooter-X might himself be 20-50 miles 'in front of' (lateralized or or name your BVR chainsaw geometry) separated from eyeball-Y.
The question then becomes one of PRESENCE vs. MISSION.
If I am a 'threat' JSF driver and I have been assigned to kill off a joint force strike package. My first question is going to be WHY? Do I even want to face a Raptor?
When, clearly, the predominant 'threats' which may otherwise be outside my IADS surface to air defensive envelopes are going to be tanking and ISR/BMC3 and EA/DEAD related.
i.e. Predators and GHawks and EA-6B/EA-18 and KC-767 and and and.
ONLY then will I want to think about tackling the minipackages with (F-16C.50) and average of 12-16 AIM-120 of their own and similar if not superior A2A performance.
In such a scenario, I doubt if more than 10-15% of my lofted intercept forces are going to survive to RTB so I am further going to have to decide whether I want to smack them in the teeth with ONE big DCA surge to put maximum stress and embarassment on the 'Coallition' threat. Or if I want to try and stretch my teams ability to contribute to the overall defensive battleplan over several raid days.
In point of truth, recent experiences in DS, OAF, Belgrade and OEF/OIF all point towards the likelihood of utter disruption of the radar defensive nets after the first raid or two and the general lack of cohesive=deep ability to do more than dump-ordnance mission kill even through the use of extensive decoy and displacement plans.
It may very well also be that I will be limited in the availability of my only USEFUL (BVR) ordnance totals so that it is generally better to surge and lose everything while maxxing out the mutual support scenario (somebody gets a long spear shot, only if EVERYBODY is carrying them).
Now, if I have the country size to play a deep defense, I /may/ be able to do an X-Y-Z 'straight thru' mission instead of an X-Y-X equivalent. Combined with the notion of an all-out 'nothing held back' defensive game plan in general; the reality becomes one of putting the jet in burner as soon as it hits the active (or indeed from taxiways and highways of sufficient length) and never taking it /out/ of max-loud for the rest of the duration of the mission.
At which point I have a Mach 1.6 (or so) JSF playing against a Mach 2 or so F/A-22. And even the simplest use of shelf or trail tactics makes it VERY hard for the F/A-22 to compensate for everybody pouring out of the baselanes in a concentrated or bearing-dispersed flush. The concept being somewhat similar to the RAF bomber command approach to streaming raid tactics to disrupt the shallow Himmelbet grids.
The only thing the Raptors can do to /stop/ this from happening is to sit right atop the baselanes and hope and pray that I don't disperse my force to roadbasing or use S-300/400 (or ASTER or even high capability EOCG systems like BAMSE) to push them off their CAP with vulnerable aspect flash (bowtie comes around and around and around.). It should also be noted that even a Raptor's acceleration profile is not going to be fantastic when heavy with 'hot off the tanker' gas and so subsonic sprintups may not be as quick, even with burner, as many surmise.
Once you reach this conclusion; it becomes apparent that 'numbers win' (sortie:sortie length). And in any condition where the F/A-22 is further compromised by GBU-32/39 carriage for a 'secondary' DEAD _Mission_ set, it may be truly difficult to beat the 'MiG-21 approach' to a (stealthy) fast-break scenario with ARH-BVR weapons solving for much of the aspect and vector slide game on closure through the merge (i.e. no more "Now you start your turn behind, now you activate the weapons system, do you have tone? FIRE!" nonsense of the olden days Russian tight-control GCI leashing).
Nobody wins fighting the way their enemy fights best. And fighting the Raptor 'straight up' when you /know/ you are going to lose to the overwhelming numeric superiority of the U.S. combined forces is particularly stupid because the Raptor itself is not what is going to generate the targeting and electronic attack lockdown by which ALL the rest of your nations defenses are put in a world of hurt.
Put Simply: The F/A-22 will win if it's bought in appropriate numbers* but the F-35, poor as it is, may very well end up being the defacto Air 'Superior' if not individually Dominant platform. Just on sheer presence. This fact also being true if a U.S. F-35 force ends up being the majority-encounter-mode combattant in facing off with other platforms. Although the results will be messier.
KP
*Appropriate numbers being roughly 500-600 jets replacing ALL F-16/F-15/F-15E/F-117 platforms in the high intensity mission set while basically ignoring the JSF as production program altogether. This being the only way, not only to ensure we don't fly the wings off a 'Platinum Bullet' force. But also that Supercruising Stealth is not hogtied to generation-before signature and subsonic transit platforms. Whose very vulnerabilities imply a 'guilt by association' risk to defenses and tactics which would never work against a properly (strike=ISAR and EOTS capable) configured Raptor force.
