the F-22 Raptor (2005):
Lockheed Martin
internal ordinance
thrust vector control
invisible to radar
undetectible radar
US Airforce
the F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) (2008):
Lockheed Martin
internal ordinance
thrust vector control
invisible to radar
undetectible radar
F-35a replace Air force F-16 and A-10
F-35b replace USMC F/A-18A/B/C/D and AV-8B (has vertical take off)
F-35c replace Navy F/A-18A/B/C/D
The Joint Strike Fighter is designed to be a 2-purpose aircraft like the f-15. Part bomber/Part fighter. It has a different purpose than the f-22. It is going to have a more advanced electronics package because of it’s release date but as a air-superiority fighter - f-22 takes the cake.
In the absence of published hard numbers for supersonic acceleration, energy bleed and persistence performance, the only reasonable conclusion is that the F-35 is likely to be competitive against the teen series and Eurocanards in combat configuration but decisively inferior to the F-22A.
It is worth noting that the F-35 is not an all-aspect stealth design like the F-22A and YF-23 which have carefully optimised exhaust geometries and thus excellent aft sector radar cross section. The axisymmetric F-135 nozzle is not in this class and thus the F-35 is clearly not intended for the deep penetration strike role of the F-22A.
The F-35 is clearly out of its league against the F-22A in all cardinal performance parameters, with the exception of its bomb bay size which is built to handle larger weapons than the F-22A. Disregarding stealth capability and baseline avionics, the F-35 is also out of its league against the F-111 in the bomb trucking role by virtue of size and fixed wing geometry.
I prefer helicopters. Have you seen the turning circle on a jet? Geez, if I’m behind you in my helicopter (what’s the really cool expensive make of helicopter that keeps getting shot down in Iraq? - one of them. apache I think it is) and you’re in your fancy jet, you’re toast before you even see the whites of my eyes.
Not to mention I can land on a postage stamp. If it was stuck down of course otherwise the rotors would just blow it away.
They said the F-16 would replace the A-10…in other words: it’s not happening! one hit to that special engine on the F-35 and boom! the A-10 has proved itslef in combat, it’s basicly a flying tank! I’m an A-10 “fan” if you can’t tell
But as far as your poll, I think the best bet is the F22, I think too many things could go wrong with the F35, specially with that engine type…
Russians say they have plasma stealth. Combine that with a hypersonic, low radar crossection, unmaned, remote control vehicle capable of leaving the atmosphere and you probably have the future.
[edit] Near future. Inertial dampners and gravity suppression would be the in the black programs?
Finally, somebody with his thinking cap on…[/quote]
Wouldn’t missiles fit that bill?[/quote]
Technically missiles are one shot rockets not reuseable planes. Drones have the capability to deliver more than one hit at a time and they could use more than one type of weapon, making them suitable for a variety of missions.
Drones could theoretically defend themselves (by remote control and/or with the aid of AI).
Plasma stealth can be detected by heat sensors.
The ideia would be creating an energy spike in front of the plane, but the original ideia wasn’t to make it stealth, but to fly faster, to be used on Scramjet engines.
If I not mistaken, the original ideia was from a cientist from CTA - Centro Tecnológico Aeroespacial (Aerospace Technological Center), but the problem is gettin the ideia to work.
Returning to the subject.
Dassault Rafale is nicer:) and there’s also Dassault Neuron, it’s only a project, to replace Rafale on the future.
