What should the USAF buy?

[StingrayOZ]

Most people think that the F-35 is a 2nd rate cousin of the F-22. F-22 is sexier, sleeker, faster, stealthier, has twice the engine, and twice the cost so is a better plane.

The F-22 is overkill. Nothing can match it in a A2A dogfight all other things being equal. Only the US needs a F-22, and even then they only need <200.

The F-35 is still better than anything else in the air today. It is a much of a A2A fighter as a F-16/F-15, but a superior striker to a F-15 eagle. And a better multirole than a F-18.

At the end of the day The F-35 is a plane that is newer and had more money invested in it. It will be operated at a much larger level than the F-22 will ever dream of.

 

[f-22fan12]

and i was just saying that sometimes those sam sites are only accessible from an aircraft carrier



1. more sensors are built-in to the F-35 that simply cannot be added to the F-22 (such as its DAS system that provides, among other features, 'look-through' capability so a pilot can look through the plane)
2. it's not clear that a helmet mounted sight will ever be integrated with the F-22
3. the F-22 is going to be the last aircraft to get the AIM-9X (probably 2014-2016 before it's integrated)
4. the F-35 will always get funding priority for updates since it will be the front-line aircraft doing all the dirty work and there will be so many of them. Not to mention our allies will make sure lots of upgrades get funded

the F-22 will always be the red-headed step-child when it comes to funding upgrades

I couldn't disagree more. While some things you say are correct, like the fact that a few features can't be added are true, the rest isn't. The F-22 is the ONLY plane the U.S. can really trust to do the toughest missions. While the F-35 may do the "dirty work" of providing close air support to troops in Afganistan and Iraq, the F-22 will be the plane ready to attack any country equipped with an advanced air defence system. The F-22 will not be the "red-headed step-child" when it comes to upgrades. The F-35 won't truly need the upgrades as it will just be in low intensity conflicts. The F-22 will be the tip of the spear in any realy high intensity conflict.

 

[Sea Toby]

I couldn't disagree more. While some things you say are correct, like the fact that a few features can't be added are true, the rest isn't. The F-22 is the ONLY plane the U.S. can really trust to do the toughest missions. While the F-35 may do the "dirty work" of providing close air support to troops in Afganistan and Iraq, the F-22 will be the plane ready to attack any country equipped with an advanced air defence system. The F-22 will not be the "red-headed step-child" when it comes to upgrades. The F-35 won't truly need the upgrades as it will just be in low intensity conflicts. The F-22 will be the tip of the spear in any realy high intensity conflict.

How many Raptors are really needed for the first strike roles. We seemed to have done very well with a limited number of Nighthawks, I would suspect a similar number of more advanced Raptors could do the same. Less than 200.

Why is the US buying so much new technology for the F-35? Could it be that the US wants a front line aircraft, not a second rated one. It seems only you consider the F-35 second rate. No one else does. With their stealthiness, I would expect the F-35 to be involved in first strikes too.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I couldn't disagree more. While some things you say are correct, like the fact that a few features can't be added are true, the rest isn't. The F-22 is the ONLY plane the U.S. can really trust to do the toughest missions. While the F-35 may do the "dirty work" of providing close air support to troops in Afganistan and Iraq, the F-22 will be the plane ready to attack any country equipped with an advanced air defence system. The F-22 will not be the "red-headed step-child" when it comes to upgrades. The F-35 won't truly need the upgrades as it will just be in low intensity conflicts. The F-22 will be the tip of the spear in any realy high intensity conflict.

The F-35 is more than capable to attack a country's advanced air defense system as it can gain control of the air and ground and in a high intensity war the F-35 will serve with the F-22 but since the F-35 is more versatile the F-35 can also be used in wars such as Iraq. Its really the F-35 that will do most of the work in a high intensity war with a small number of F-22s(183 of them) that will support the F-35s but the F-35 will be the main tactical warplane for all missions of the future and the F-22 is like a strategic fighter.

 

[irtusk]

the F-22 will be the plane ready to attack any country equipped with an advanced air defence system.

again, unless said country is only accessible via carrier

The F-22 will not be the "red-headed step-child" when it comes to upgrades.

um, IT ALREADY IS

The AIM-9X entered service in 2003, the same year the first production F-22 was delivered. Here it is 5 years later and it's going to be AT LEAST another 5 years before it's integrated

and even then, it's not going to be as effective as it could be because the JHMCS still won't be integrated

The F-35 won't truly need the upgrades as it will just be in low intensity conflicts.

good to know the navy won't be involved in any high intensity conflicts

 

[irtusk]

How many Raptors are really needed for the first strike roles. We seemed to have done very well with a limited number of Nighthawks, I would suspect a similar number of more advanced Raptors could do the same. Less than 200.

that's a good point, there were only ever 60 or so F-117s and 21 (now 20) B-2s for a grand total of 80 stealth planes in the US inventory

if 80 worked, 203 (183 F-22 + 20 B-2 + completely ignoring the F-35) should be more than sufficient

And you can't ignore the F-35. People act like its stealth is chopped liver. It most definitely is not.

 

[f-22fan12]

Okay, after 3 people trying to convince me of the F-35s capability, well, I think it has worked. I do realize that the F-35 will have the helmet mounted sights very soon and the F-22 won't have it for at least 8-10 years after its introduction. But I still have some doubts. Will the F-35 will be as good in dogfights without thrust vectoring or a large wing surface? And if the F-35 is so great, 1) why is the USAF insisting on 381 Raptors and 2) would the U.S. really risk giving its most advanced fighter aircraft to so many countries thereby greatly increasing the risk that the technology will be sold to a potential enemy?

One more thing, I don't know if any of you saw the latest version of "dogfights" the TV show but it was about the future of aerial warefare and had alot about the F-22 and F-35. One of the "scenarios" was when 4 F-22s and about 12-15 F-35s was sent to attack a country with a advanced air defense system. Then they interviewed one of the test pilots for the F-35. He said that the only plane capable of even coming close or at parity with the F-35 would be the F-22. But I disagreed.
Why would a country like Israel want the F-22 when they are supposed to receive their F-35s early? The F-22 must be better.

By the way, I enjoy this discussion, hope you guys don't hate me. I'm just debating, that's all.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Okay, after 3 people trying to convince me of the F-35s capability, well, I think it has worked. I do realize that the F-35 will have the helmet mounted sights very soon and the F-22 won't have it for at least 8-10 years after its introduction. But I still have some doubts. Will the F-35 will be as good in dogfights without thrust vectoring or a large wing surface? And if the F-35 is so great, 1) why is the USAF insisting on 381 Raptors and 2) would the U.S. really risk giving its most advanced fighter aircraft to so many countries thereby greatly increasing the risk that the technology will be sold to a potential enemy?

One more thing, I don't know if any of you saw the latest version of "dogfights" the TV show but it was about the future of aerial warefare and had alot about the F-22 and F-35. One of the "scenarios" was when 4 F-22s and about 12-15 F-35s was sent to attack a country with a advanced air defense system. Then they interviewed one of the test pilots for the F-35. He said that the only plane capable of even coming close or at parity with the F-35 would be the F-22. But I disagreed.
Why would a country like Israel want the F-22 when they are supposed to receive their F-35s early? The F-22 must be better.

By the way, I enjoy this discussion, hope you guys don't hate me. I'm just debating, that's all.

1. The F-35 will still be very capable in dogfights, like the F-16 and F-15 but just not as good as the F-22 but it will still be a very capable dogfighter.
2. The USAF wants more F-22s because they will always want more high tech toys, if you give them 381 F-22s than they will want 800 F-22s and if you give them 1800 F-35s then they will want 2400 F-35s. Their like a kid wanting more candy its always more more more....
3. The U.S. Congress has banned the export of the F-22 to other countries and the exported F-35s will likely be down graded F-35s that are not as good as American F-35s. Basically the exported F-35s are only F-35s by name.
4. The only jet that can beat the F-35 in combat is the F-22 Raptor but the F-35 is still better than anything else.

 

[irtusk]

But I still have some doubts. Will the F-35 will be as good in dogfights without thrust vectoring or a large wing surface?

that's the beauty of high off-boresight missiles

you no longer have to maneuver directly behind someone to fire

as long as they are in range, you can get them

thus the need for huge maneuvering surfaces and thrust vectoring is reduced

And if the F-35 is so great, 1) why is the USAF insisting on 381 Raptors

i can think of several reasons, take your pick:
1) the raptor is undeniably cool and everyone likes the coolest toys
2) the raptor does have more potential with its kinematic advantages
3) a bird in hand is worth 2 or 3 in the bush

the AF might say, 'yes, would be willing to sacrifice x raptors for 2x F-35s' but it doesn't work that way. The future is unknown, the next administration might slash budgets and they end up with nothing now and nothing in the future. That's why you grab the sure thing.

and 2) would the U.S. really risk giving its most advanced fighter aircraft to so many countries thereby greatly increasing the risk that the technology will be sold to a potential enemy?

1. many people aren't happy with the tech we're giving away with the F-35
2. if the F-22 were to be exported, it would have to be sanitized, a process that would take years and lots and lots of money. The F-35 was designed from the beginning to be sanitized to limit the amount of unwanted tech transfer

Why would a country like Israel want the F-22 when they are supposed to receive their F-35s early? The F-22 must be better.

1. hype. the F-22 has been hyped and the F-35 has been downplayed. Maybe they believe it themselves, but even if they don't, it's helpful if their enemies believe it. It's a nice deterrent factor. 'Oh noes! They have the invincible Raptor! We best not tick them off!'

2. The F-22 is better (for A2A). I never said otherwise.

My points were that the F-35 has closed the gap significantly and it is not as wide as you might expect

More importantly, the US NEEDS the F-35

we currently have over 1200 F-16s, over 700 F-15s, over 350 A-10s, 146 Harriers, and hundreds upon hundreds of F-18s (not counting Super Hornets) that will all need to be replaced

that's well over 2500 combat aircraft

no matter how good the Raptor is, it can never replace that quantity because
1) we can't afford it
2) even if we could, we simply can't build them fast enough to keep pace with the ever-increasing pace of retirements

The F-35 was designed to be both affordable and mass-produced in an assembly-line like process

The F-35 will provide the backbone of US air power for decades to come, it is the most critical military acquisition process in a long, long time.

A key part of keeping it affordable is getting other people to buy it to help share development costs and keep unit costs low.

As you might have noticed, it seems like practically every airforce in the world is in the midst of a replenishment cycle. The main knock on the F-35 in these competitions has been the possibility of delays and the uncertainty of the cost. That's why it's imperative we get this program cranking. Once all these airforces have selected their fighter, it might be 30 years before they look again and we will have lost our window.

And to be blunt, providing weapons to all these countries spreads our strategic influence

And i keep mentioning carriers and to me this is a very critical part. In my eyes the Navy took a step backwards by moving from the F-14 to the F-18 in both speed and more importantly range. But the Navy didn't care because the F-18 was cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and more reliable. Carriers now have to operate closer to shore and can't have patrols as far out, thus leaving them more vulnerable. Not to mention they have no stealth attack planes to penetrate heavy air defenses.

The F-35 will go a long ways to rectifying this situation with its superior range and stealth capabilities

The Harrier has been a death trap for Marines with its antiquated flight control system. I look forward to the more modern, care-free controls of the F-35B.

The future of CAS is altitude. A-10s are receiving upgrades to work from altitude, but they are poorly suited for the task with their pathetic speed and poor endurance. The integrated sensors of the F-35 will do a far superior job (both targetting the enemy and avoiding 'friendly' fire) and its tremendous endurance will allow it to loiter over the battlefield for extended periods of time.

In the air, the F-35's steath, sensor fusion, helmet cueing and high off-boresight missiles will be more than a match for any enemy plane.

The F-35 will never be as sexy as the F-22, but it is more than capable of doing the task laid before it.

 

[f-22fan12]

1. The F-35 will still be very capable in dogfights, like the F-16 and F-15 but just not as good as the F-22 but it will still be a very capable dogfighter.
2. The USAF wants more F-22s because they will always want more high tech toys, if you give them 381 F-22s than they will want 800 F-22s and if you give them 1800 F-35s then they will want 2400 F-35s. Their like a kid wanting more candy its always more more more....
3. The U.S. Congress has banned the export of the F-22 to other countries and the exported F-35s will likely be down graded F-35s that are not as good as American F-35s. Basically the exported F-35s are only F-35s by name.
4. The only jet that can beat the F-35 in combat is the F-22 Raptor but the F-35 is still better than anything else.

Thank you both for the replies but on point 3, you said the exported F-35s will only by F-35s by name. Where is your proof, as far as I know the American and exported F-35s will be the same.

By the way, what is the comparison for both of these airplanes in the electronic warfare roles?

And I am kind of coming to my senses as far as realizing the F-35's capability. The F-22 will still be better, but the F-35 will be better than everything else, at least that's my understanding.

The Raptor Rules!

 

[irtusk]

Thank you both for the replies but on point 3, you said the exported F-35s will only by F-35s by name. Where is your proof, as far as I know the American and exported F-35s will be the same.

there has been contradictory information as to what if any differences there will be between domestic and export F-35s

some have said export varieties will have degraded stealth, others have vigorously denied this

it just isn't clear yet

By the way, what is the comparison for both of these airplanes in the electronic warfare roles?

the F-35 is probably more advanced but the F-22 does have the physically larger AESA if that makes a difference

however, look for most EW roles to be fulfilled by the EA-18G Grower, as that is its purpose

And I am kind of coming to my senses as far as realizing the F-35's capability. The F-22 will still be better, but the F-35 will be better than everything else, at least that's my understanding.

The Raptor Rules!

exactly

 

[Sea Toby]

I find it amazing how so many are so concerned with the recent F-15 structural problems, and that the air force has a fighter gap because of this..... :hitwall

Well, the US Navy has a looming fighter gap too, and its been around for a while. Notice the complaints about smaller carrier air groups.

 

[AegisFC]

Well, the US Navy has a looming fighter gap too, and its been around for a while. Notice the complaints about smaller carrier air groups.

The groups may be smaller but the air craft require less maintenance between sorties and are available for tasking more than past aircraft so the current and future airwing is just as effective as past larger wings.

 

[rjmaz1]

Will the F-35 will be as good in dogfights without thrust vectoring or a large wing surface?

The F-22's whole design is aimed at high speed. A high speed aircraft cannot be agile at low speed as wing design is a compromise. If the F-22 did not have thrust vectoring i could bet money that it would have had low speed agility that was lower than the F-16, Super Hornet and Eurofighter.

The F-35's wing design has compromised extreme supersonic speeds for subsonic agility. The F-35's wing provides more lift at lower speeds than the F-22 so it does not need thrust vectoring

Hopefully this helps a little. In a turning dog fight i'd say the F-35 would beat a F-22 on average, mainly due to a helmet mounted sight giving a huge advantage to the the F-35 and thrust vectoring giving only a small advantage to the F-22.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The F-22's whole design is aimed at high speed. A high speed aircraft cannot be agile at low speed as wing design is a compromise. If the F-22 did not have thrust vectoring i could bet money that it would have had low speed agility that was lower than the F-16, Super Hornet and Eurofighter.

The F-35's wing design has compromised extreme supersonic speeds for subsonic agility. The F-35's wing provides more lift at lower speeds than the F-22 so it does not need thrust vectoring

Hopefully this helps a little. In a turning dog fight i'd say the F-35 would beat a F-22 on average, mainly due to a helmet mounted sight giving a huge advantage to the the F-35 and thrust vectoring giving only a small advantage to the F-22.

1. How do you explain the F-15 and Su-27? Both fast and extremely agile?

2. F-22 TVC is for high altitude supersonic agility where traditional control surfaces are less effective.

3. Why would an F-22 ever slow down, come down allow itself to be detected to enter into WW II-Vietnam style air combat when it can fight from positions of advantage engaging at will almost completely outside the engagement envelop of any other fighter?

Flown properly I've red pilots during training have been unable to even engage it...

Invisibility - even with eyes on

When the Raptor finds itself in a dogfight, it is no longer beyond visual range, but the advantage of stealth isn't diminished. It maintains "high ground" even at close range.

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power.

Turn and burn

Thrust vectoring, internal weapons mounting and increased power all contribute to the Raptor's maneuvering advantage. From the cockpit of the F-22, Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters.

This boost of thrust enables the Raptor to take off with a full load of weapons and fuel. Furthermore, mach speeds are attainable without afterburners (supercruise) and coincidently, the F-22 features better fuel efficiency than legacy fighters. This increased fuel efficiency raises eyebrows considering the F-22 boasts 20,000 more pounds of thrust than the F-15 Eagle it's replacing.

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831

Some of last few F-22 comments don't seem to be in line with what is happening in the real world.


-DA

 

[irtusk]

1. How do you explain the F-15 and Su-27? Both fast and extremely agile?

is the F-15 really that agile?

both the F-16 and F-18 are supposed to outturn it . . .

2. F-22 TVC is for high altitude supersonic agility where traditional control surfaces are less effective.

that is true

but that doesn't mean rjmaz1's claim is false

almost completely outside the engagement envelop of any other fighter?

the engagement envelope is more dependent on the missile than the plane (although speed and altitude can have an effect)

Flown properly I've red pilots during training have been unable to even engage it...

that was where the F-22s stealth prevented the missile's radar from locking on even when the opposing pilot could see it

the F-35 also has stealth . . .

 

[DarthAmerica]

is the F-15 really that agile?

both the F-16 and F-18 are supposed to outturn it . . .

It has over 100 air to air victories. A lot of those in a time where BVR combat was in it's infancy and highly unreliable and prior to high off boresight missiles. What do you think?

ht*p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_15CH-POK8

That's the heaviest variant BTW.

that is true

but that doesn't mean rjmaz1's claim is false

Being designed for high speed doesn't mean a lack of agility. Also the Raptor wasn't just designed for high speed. It was also made for super maneuverability. rjmaz1's claim is completely false.

the engagement envelope is more dependent on the missile than the plane (although speed and altitude can have an effect)

that was where the F-22s stealth prevented the missile's radar from locking on even when the opposing pilot could see it

the F-35 also has stealth . . .

You are contradicting yourself with the way you qualified your comment. Missiles have come a long way but a fighter still needs to position the missile properly for the best chance against a fleeting target. With supersonic rates of change in the velocity of the F-22 and an opponent, any missile shot would have to physically work harder to meet with a target. Missiles only have so much fuel to burn then they rely on kinetic energy to carry them to the target. When their control surfaces are used to maneuver they bleed off that energy through induced drag which slows them down thus decreasing performance. If they slow down enough, they fall of out the sky.

Gravity also plays a role. If the F-22 has a ~4-8 mile altitude advantage(~30000ft vs ~60000ft+) that alone is enough to seriously reduce the probability of a hit because the missile has to spend limited KE climbing up to the F-22. With altitude advantage like that, the shortest distance between an F-22 and an opponent would be when they passed each other and the F-22 is straight overhead. Altitudes where this would happen could easily see a rate of closure ~M2.0 or greater. Remember F=V^2/R( where F=G force, V=velocity and R=radius of the turn. Since the missile is trying to hit the F-22 rather than turn about it, R is a decreasing value. Look what happens to F if R decreases. Also the more the missile actually turns toward the F-22 the V will increase with the COS of the angle. When V increases what happens?

What does all that mean? Well it means that the fighter pilot still has to try to position the missile for the best shot regardless and the sheer performance of the F-22 makes that very difficult for the firing aircraft and the missile. Even without stealth the F-22s flight performance would give it tremendous advantages over any other aircraft.

Words used by pilots to describe it are "unmatched power and maneuverability". Think about that.

-DA

 

[irtusk]

It has over 100 air to air victories. A lot of those in a time where BVR combat was in it's infancy and highly unreliable and prior to high off boresight missiles. What do you think?

1. those victories weren't against F-16s and F-18s
2. the opponent pilots sucked
3. there is more to air combat than plane-vs-plane, there is also the support infrastructure (awacs, jamming, intelligence, etc, etc)

ht*p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_15CH-POK8

????

i only watched the first 2 minutes of it, but i missed the 'impressive manoueverability' part of it

maybe that was in minute 6?

Being designed for high speed doesn't mean a lack of agility. Also the Raptor wasn't just designed for high speed. It was also made for super maneuverability. rjmaz1's claim is completely false.

rjmaz1's claim is that the wing is optimized for high speed and thus compromised manoueverability

supermanoueverability was added with huge control surfaces and (more importantly) thrust vectoring

both statements could be true, i don't know enough to say

but i do know enough to say that you haven't disproved him

You are contradicting yourself with the way you qualified your comment.

not at all

speed and altitude do affect the range of a missile

but so does the type of missile

for instance the Su-30 can carry ginormous A2A missiles with bigger motors that can outrange an AMRAAM no matter what speed and altitude a Raptor is operating at

or the Meteor which has 'three to six times the kinematic performance of current air/air missiles of its type' because of its more efficient ramjet engine

Missiles have come a long way but a fighter still needs to position the missile properly for the best chance against a fleeting target.

it is not a NEED in the vast majority of cases

Gravity also plays a role. If the F-22 has a ~4-8 mile altitude advantage(~30000ft vs ~60000ft+)

and if the F-22 doesn't have an altitude advantage?

the F-22 isn't the only plane that can operate at 60000+ ft . . .

and sometimes it might come in on the deck to help avoid radar coverage

Words used by pilots to describe it are "unmatched power and maneuverability". Think about that.

think about what?

i never said the F-22 wasn't the best

i'm just saying the F-35 isn't as far behind as some seem to believe

 

[stigmata]

i never said the F-22 wasn't the best

i'm just saying the F-35 isn't as far behind as some seem to believe

Low signature is not the holy grail in ATA, speed is more important.
Do you honestly believe USA would export F-35 to half the world if they thought it would be any problem to shoot them off the sky if need be ?

 

[DarthAmerica]

1. those victories weren't against F-16s and F-18s
2. the opponent pilots sucked
3. there is more to air combat than plane-vs-plane, there is also the support infrastructure (awacs, jamming, intelligence, etc, etc)

Strawman. Doesn't need to be F-16/18. All of these fighters from the 3rd and 4th generation have similar or comparable performance. You think 100/100 pilots sucked? Not likely. Also you have simply heard us here mention things like awacs, jamming and such and regurgitating it here without understanding the context. If a plane has 100+ aerial victories vs 0 losses it's demonstrated that it's maneuverability, however good, is not an issue.

????

i only watched the first 2 minutes of it, but i missed the 'impressive manoueverability' part of it

maybe that was in minute 6?

Here is a hint, you didn't watch it LONG ENOUGH. Think about what I'm trying to tell you.

rjmaz1's claim is that the wing is optimized for high speed and thus compromised manoueverability

supermanoueverability was added with huge control surfaces and (more importantly) thrust vectoring

both statements could be true, i don't know enough to say

but i do know enough to say that you haven't disproved him

No you don't. Thats obvious.

not at all

speed and altitude do affect the range of a missile

but so does the type of missile

for instance the Su-30 can carry ginormous A2A missiles with bigger motors that can outrange an AMRAAM no matter what speed and altitude a Raptor is operating at

Oh boy here we go with Su-30s and big missiles...

or the Meteor which has 'three to six times the kinematic performance of current air/air missiles of its type' because of its more efficient ramjet engine

The propulsion scheme of the METEOR is completely different from contemporary missile design. Think ballistic missile vs cruise missile and end game.

it is not a NEED in the vast majority of cases

Absolutely incorrect. Missile launch parameters are always critical to a successful engagement. Especially in the first few critical seconds where the missile's processor has to make choices about the optimum flight profile to merge with a target.

and if the F-22 doesn't have an altitude advantage?

Then the pilot isn't exploiting that advantage. Hopefully for some reason otherwise he is not using one of his/her strengths.

the F-22 isn't the only plane that can operate at 60000+ ft . . .

No one ever said it was. But it is the only fighter that can fight the way it does at those altitudes. Oh, except for the YF-23. But I don't think the F-22 needs to worry about combat with YF-23's anymore.

and sometimes it might come in on the deck to help avoid radar coverage

OK but why not take advantage of it's signature management and keep the energy advantage as well? I'm just sayin'...

think about what?

i never said the F-22 wasn't the best

i'm just saying the F-35 isn't as far behind as some seem to believe

No one is saying the F-35 is behind. It's just not in the same class as the F-22 in the ATA or SEAD/DEAD role. Perhaps in other areas as well but the capabilities of the avionics are not public information.

-DA