What should the USAF buy?

[not_so_sis]

DARTH AMERICA is correct on current and future fighter engagement principles being BVR (or how any attacking pilot would prefer anyway) making the F22 a great tool, taking on so many aircraft at once is fantastic, however it cannot defy its existance and be in more than one place at a time, however the F35 can.. (if you get what I mean)

 

[stigmata]

the F22 a great tool, taking on so many aircraft at once is fantastic, however it cannot defy its existance and be in more than one place at a time, however the F35 can.. (if you get what I mean)

I think i know what you mean, but i dont think you will have sufficient F35 to block every entry of attacking aircraft, high speed is crucial to intercept them if you dont happen to incidentally be loitering around there at that moment. Tu-22M is really hard to intercept before it launches its missiles, and is nigh impossible to chase down.

 

[Sea Toby]

Our northern border with Canada is what, say some 3,000 miles. Top speed at a high altitude of a Raptor is only what, 200 more mph. One Raptor will take three hours to fly from the west coast to the east coast. Both aircraft's combat range is what, 600 miles. Both fighters can fly very fast at top speed, some 1200-1400 mph for how long, less than a half an hour before it has to turn around to reach its home base. More fighters equals less holes, and smaller holes. So which do you want, a bit more speed or more fighters?

Isn't if funny those who prefer speed prefer to use Mach terms, not speed in mph? Mach 2.0 sounds faster than Mach 1.8, but its only a hundred or so mph more. 1200 mph or 1350 mph sounds less impressive, don't it?

 

[not_so_sis]

talking in mph is a far better way to appreciate the speed, it also reminds you of the pilots safety net being the fact he/she can eject, so in a circumstance where the pilot is going to have to fight at a closer range with possibilities of being locked up perhaps said pilot (su22) flew directly into a trap, then you do not want to be travelling too fast as you might as well pull an explode helmet cord rather than ejecting. Meaning speed is great, but it cannot be relied upon, too heavily, you may end up flying said fast towards the enemy. Hopefully at different alt with lots of cloud between you and without being noticed. however there are a million and 1 scenarios, speed does not mean inpenetrable. As Sea harriers proved fighting the faster argentines.
By the way, the F22 really is on a completely different level to an su22 and im sure the face on a russian pilot briefed to fly and fire even at bvm at one would be rather discomposed.

 

[stigmata]

Isn't if funny those who prefer speed prefer to use Mach terms, not speed in mph? Mach 2.0 sounds faster than Mach 1.8, but its only a hundred or so mph more. 1200 mph or 1350 mph sounds less impressive, don't it?

Not that i ever mentioned Mach terms, or even afterburn, because i concider afterburn an act of desperation. Allthough i agree you desperately need to intercept a Tu-22M before it launches its missiles, it really is much preferable if you dont have to resort to afterburn.

The reason is simple, an aircraft burn 4-5 times as much fuel at afterburn as it does at military, just a few minutes at afterburn and the fighter have to retire, meaning it is useless for any practical purpose. The bomber only have to make a circle while the fighter limp back to base after the desperate afterburn.
If we instead look at the speed in mph at the several times more economical military speed, we find that F35 has a military speed of around 670 mph to intercept, while F22 has a military speed of 1260 mph.
670 mph vs 1260 mph sounds less impressive, does'nt it ?

 

[not_so_sis]

dependant upon arnament and fuel try 1050mph cruise speed for an F35.

 

[stigmata]

dependant upon arnament and fuel try 1050mph cruise speed for an F35.

Thats M.1.4 in my book, so i dont want to try that, no matter what engine upgrade, humidity/pressure/temperature. No matter what humidity/pressure/temperature, F22 is just about twice as fast as F35 at dry thrust.

 

[not_so_sis]

f22 cruise speed is Mach 1.5 = 1140 mph ish
f35 cruise speed is Mach 1.3 ish = 1050mph

Where has the twice as fast come from?
Would involved countries pay so much for a plane that cruises at 600 mph.... really?

 

[stigmata]

errm, would you like to give me a link to

f35 cruise speed is Mach 1.3 ish = 1050mph

?

ps, to answer your question, as far as battlefield interdiction aircraft goes, i cant think of anything better, and there isn't a whole lot of new fighters to choose from.

 

[not_so_sis]

http://www.aviationtrivia.info/F-35-Lightning-II.php

obviously there is no real solid figure yet.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Since when does the F-35 have supercruise?

 

[stigmata]

Lockheed Martin has publicly declared F-35 is subsonic at dry thrust, i can't find any link for it at the moment though.

 

[not_so_sis]

ok. If you find a link just drop it on here.

 

[Sintra]

f22 cruise speed is Mach 1.5 = 1140 mph ish
f35 cruise speed is Mach 1.3 ish = 1050mph

Where has the twice as fast come from?
Would involved countries pay so much for a plane that cruises at 600 mph.... really?

OH my...

"Mach 1.3" Cruise Speed for the F-35A?!

Design cruising speed, also known as the optimum cruise speed, is the most efficient speed in terms of distance, speed and fuel usage.

That "600 mph" will be a LOT closer to reality.

And if you were talking about the ability of an aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds without using re-heat the concept it´s caled "Supercruise". And no, an F-35A wont be capable of Mach 1.3 on Dry Thrust.
But we do have a "quotable" number, that´s Mach 1.05 without afterburner for the F-35A.
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2430121.ece

 

[not_so_sis]

could you show me an article on how it will not super cruise?

 

[Sintra]

could you show me an article on how it will not super cruise?

I just did, but the simple fact that the F-35A was NEVER meant to have THAT capability (Mach 1.3 supercruise) should count for something.
That aircraft was never meant to be a supercruiser, high energy ATA fighter, that´s the RAPTOR, but to be capable of long range penetration and/or high "tempo" loitering CAS.
It has a massive internal fuel fraction with the correspondent fuselage generated drag, a wing sweep angle identical to the one of the A-7 Corsair and fixed air intakes optimized for low RCS and high subsonic speed...
That´s a very, very, very advanced fighter bomber, a highly lethal oponent both in ATG or ATA, BUT it´s not a high speed interceptor.

I do think that RJ Mitchell (the guy who invented the Spitfire) once said something like this: "a fighter his all engine and no fuel, a bomber his all fuel and no engine". And the JSF has a massive fuel fraction... (and a bloody BIG engine)

Cheers

 

[not_so_sis]

also depends what countries version you get!! oh dear.

 

[Sintra]

also depends what countries version you get!! oh dear.

Countries Version?!

Are you refering to the A/B/C versions of the basic JSF/F-35 (they do have diferences in speed) or to something else?

 

[not_so_sis]

no in the fact that there are differences between countries in configurations, parts all kinds of things. like RAF and Royal navy having weaponry on wings aswell as in the bay.

 

[Sintra]

no in the fact that there are differences between countries in configurations, parts all kinds of things. like RAF and Royal navy having weaponry on wings aswell as in the bay.

Oh, I see.
Any version (A/B/C) and any country who operates the F-35 will have the option to use weapons on the wings pylons. But there might be diferent configurations if any country asks for some specific adition (something about CFT´s and Israel, by example, or the external AIM-132 pylons for the british) but i have the feeling that almost "everybody and its dog" will "piggyback" the Pentagon funded upgrades (the "funded" part it´s the essential part )

Cheers