In a dogfight I do not think that there is an aircraft on this planet that can compete against an F-22. The F-35 is no slouch, either, but the F-22 is the alpha predator.
That would be…impressive, actually. But I doubt any variant of the F-35 has demonstrated takeoff, vertical or otherwise, without fuel, though I suppose if you were extremely generous with your definition of “takeoff”, the F-35C might be able to, given its CATOBAR capability.
The F-35B is STOVL (Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing), not VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY
Lockheed Martin says of the video: "An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance."
The F-35 comes with a bunch of other technology that make it truly formidable. The cost has also come down substantially, so it’s probably the cheapest option out there as well.
Mind you, eventually this will be correct... just it's been declared prematurely for 60 years and so this still may not be the correct moment to say so.
> The F-35 pilot just needs to point their head towards the enemy to lock on.
Missile performance won't be equal in this case; if the enemy can launch missiles with higher pkill, well..
The enemy COULD pop out from just behind the mountain/hill in front of you, and force you to have to resort to short ranged (FOX 2) missiles or even guns.
Still, though, this is not enough to prioritize extreme agility over stealth today. The F35 is more than agile enough for the few times this occurs, especially if there is a wingman around.
I remember reading an interview with a pilot who flew in the Iraq war after major hostilities were over. He described a situation, iirc, where he got a radar contact. He notified his superiors (can't remember the exact term he used) and they said they no friendlies should be flying there. It was ok for him to shoot it down. Something felt off and decided to try to id the plane first. It turned out to be a civilian plane carrying contractors or dignitaries (can't remember which).
I can try to find the article again if necessary. The main point is that there are some cases where you do need to "ask questions first" (ie. id the plane) and then shoot.
My understanding is that the "dogfighting is over" rhetoric stopped being proven wrong during the Iran-Iraq war, when Iraqi fighters started mysteriously exploding in the sky during operations.
If you can safely entirely rely upon on IFF and deconfliction, all is great.
If you ever have to close to identify targets, then you might end up with some significant maneuvering, etc. Of course, the F-35 isn't terrible at this, and stealth and efficiency lets it better choose the terms of this engagement.
A naval variant capable of carrier landings of the F-22 was considered by the US Navy but was ultimately not adopted. The airframe is definitely capable of it, if given sufficient military and political will.
For example, lets see what Bayraktar MIUS will be doing.
Someone will eventually produce an aircraft to rival the 5th gen capabilities of the US, but it hasn’t been done yet. Every competitor so far has been theater. Meanwhile, the US is actively developing and testing 6th gen combat aircraft.
But aircraft tech, yes - absolutely. The US knows how to build impressive planes. But stand-off ballistics and drones are now the better bang for the buck.
What do you mean “ballistics”? Ballistic missiles? If so, then, sure, Russia has much longer range conventional SRBMs than the US (though that should change this year, with the PrSM coming online), which has largely (until comparatively recently) focused on manned aircraft abd cruise rather than ballistic missiles for the same use.
> But stand-off ballistics and drones are now better bang for the buck.
In the specific tacrical environment of the Ukraine war, they may be, given the inability of either side to achieve reliable air superiority. Certainly, as terror weapons against civilian populations it is true.
More generally, that's less clear.
Ukraine is not the United States military, and is not being armed with its full complement of weapons for very specific diplomatic reasons. Whereas Russia has been free to unload all it's conventional weapons as it sees fit.
The problem is: what exactly do you bomb? I.e. what is the battle-related purpose of this machine?
Bombing tank formations would, of course, make sense, let's say if you encounter a formation of 10-15 tanks a F-35 sortie would make sense. But then the enemy adapts and starts only using tanks in "solitary", so to speak, or at most in "pairs". Does it make economic and operational sense to fly and risk a F-35 just to destroy two tanks? I don't know.
The same goes for enemy artillery. Does it make economic sense to risk a F-35 sortie just to try and take out howitzers scattered over the entire front line? I think it doesn't, for example the Russians have been reasonably good at taking NATO-sent M777s just by using counter-artillery or Lancet suicide mini-drones (orders of magnitude cheaper than a F-35, excluding the opportunity costs of losing an airplane pilot's life).
Of course, F-35s would be best in destroying civilian infrastructure related to the enemy's war effort behind the front-lines, stuff like power transmission units, bridges, railways etc, meaning what NATO did in Serbia in 1999 and what the Allies tried to do against Germany in WW2. But, again, it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles (the Russians have also proved that that is doable during the current war in Ukraine), ignoring the fact that it might not work (the Germans carried out producing war stuff until the early months of 1945, despite the very heavy aerial bombings).
I think the US military has been the victim of its own success in the first Gulf War, when indeed air superiority allowed them to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait with almost no losses on the US side. But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.
You then use your vast fleet of less capable planes to ramp up sorties, provide air support during combined arms operations, etc. You can still use your magic airplane for protection of those assets during sorties, and for strike missions on high-value, high-threat targets.
That is why it is not a problem to have 'few' expensive magic planes. The US only had a hand full of U2's and SR71's, because you're not doing spying runs over Russia 10x a day.
That works for a very short war, like those in Iraq/Kuwait in 1990-1991 and in Serbia in 1999 happened to be, meaning it was cost effective to have invested so much money in the far more superior US planes because the wars in themselves were short (so the US got a good ROI out of using those advanced planes).
But what to do in case of a war that spans over an entire year or more? (like the current war in Ukraine). The marginal utility of those first debilitating air strikes carried out by advanced planes goes down quite rapidly, nobody cares after 12 months of intense on-the-ground war if some airfields behind the front have been blasted just as the war started, most probably those airfields have already been repaired.
And there's also the opportunity costs. The money spent on developing a very advanced plane like the F-22 could have been put to better use by investing in the US's artillery shells-making industry (of which the West has not enough of right now), artillery shells which provide a much better ROI during a 12-month land-war compared to an advanced plane.
It's all a matter of what future wars the US plans to get into and how it thinks those wars will actually develop.
If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield, maybe preventing the us' billions in fighters from doing things?
If I were an accountant for the US military, yes, I would do that. But, of course, things are a lot more complicated, because if they have built it they'll have to use it, you can't go in front of a Congressional budget commission and say that it doesn't make sense to use a F-35 when the F-16 can do the job just as fine, because they'll furiously ask you why did you need all that money for the F-35 in the first place.
> If there's a war in 5-10 years with china, will drones be fighting on the battlefield
Could be. Either way, I think we haven't reached the "maximum" when it comes to the use of aerial drones in modern warfare, not by a long shot. Partly also because of institutional reasons, when you've spent so much money on a project like the F-35 you don't ask your best military minds to think too much about drones so that you could best employ them on the battlefield, you ask those bright minds to put the F-35 to use (because a general's future career prospects depend on it). This would only get alleviated by the US having to fight a real war, when, supposedly, those institutional motives would be overcome by the reality of war.
About a possible US war against China I can't comment much because I don't know the situation in that geographic area all too well. It is my understanding though that the US is preparing for a war over the vast area of the Pacific, a repeat of their WW2-campaign if you wish, but I'm not sure China will fall into that trap. But this is pure unsubstantiated speculation from me, time will tell.
Then you've already won. Tanks are by far most useful on offense when concentrated. Individual tanks can not break through infantry lines, if the infantry has any amount of anti air weaponry attached.
> The problem is: what exactly do you bomb?
F35's main responsibility would be to ensure air superiority, by keeping the air free of enemy aircraft (including any medium to large drones) and by supressing and finally destroying enemy air defences.
Once that is achieved, they can be used for any kind of traditional CAS or go hunting enemy artillery positions. When on the defensive, aircraft are superb at limiting enemy mobility, by attacking trains, convoys bridges and rail heads.
Also, and espeicially in large wars where satellites are likely to be shot down, having aircraft over a warzone provides a huge intelligence advantage. Even when out of bombs, the aircraft can use cameras and data links to send coordinates for enemy artillery, bunkers and tanks back to HQ or to friendly forces.
And obviously, once air supremacy has been achieved, all the 4th gen aircraft can also join in the CAP/Ground Attacks/Interdiction missions.
> it's much cheaper to do it with cruise missiles
This is not true. Cruise missiles are quite expensive when compared to bombs. A tomahawk missile costs $2M per unit. By comparison, a JDAM bomb costs about $25K. Even when including aircraft maintainance, fuel, etc, bombs are an order of magnitude cheaper than cruise missiles.
> But the second Gulf War proved that once the war gets more complicated (in that case when it got close to Baghdad and to populated centers) then relying on airplanes alone is not enough.
The second gulf war was primarily a TV war for public opinion. The best approach to wars where you're not willing to use the amount of force necessary to win it, is to not fight it.
fwiw, if you're looking for a particular kind of strike target, the F-35 is widely regarded as the USAF's most credible SEAD/DEAD platform. It's suitable for a wide range of other roles, but SEAD really sets it apart.
The F-35 was designed to be a mass produced aircraft that (1) could be exported widely without risk of leaking too many secrets and (2) reduced absolute performance and features based on a more pragmatic cost-benefit analysis where it only needed to be good enough and not the best possible. Economies of scale factored greatly into its design.
Most nations want to hang onto that technological edge as long as feasible.
The F-22 can go faster and further than the F-35. It's also more maneuverable and a touch stealthier. (The F-35 has better tech, is cheaper to build and operate and can carry more armament.)
Than the F-22??
It's also unlikely the projected numbers are ever going to be acquired simply due to the fact that projected budgets and reality don't usually agree.
Particularly during R&D you can kick and scream as much as you want to deny reality about things. At some point it will set in that while the F-35 does in fact exist as an aircraft, it isn't practical, meets none of it's objectives and may actually be operationally inferior to existing aircraft.
If you don't believe me read any of the DOT&E reports on the F-35. Even they mention that for things to work out would require the F-35 program to suddenly go from never meeting any of their own objectives to meeting 100% of them for the forseeable future.
My personal projection is that acquisition is halted in the next few years and in less than 20 years the available aircraft will be in storage in Davis-Monthan or a similar facility.
"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu
For example, the F22 has a slower top speed than the F15 (although higher non-afterburner speed).
Speed also provides an energy advantage against SAM's and very long range ATA missiles.
The F-35 can probably go faster than the stated top speed of M1.6, though, if surivival depends on it. I would guess its real top speed is around M2, similar to an F-16.
No it's not.
Modern US doctrine favors early detection and long range engagement by missiles.
What would a US carrier group do to stop a large group of Tu-160, Tu-22, Mig31 and similar aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles with ranges that in many cases exceed 1000km, and some of which are supersonic or even hypersonic?
If the carrier is several 1000 kilometer from land, maybe F35's flying CAP + any additional scrambled fighters may provide enough protection.
But the closer the carrier gets to land, the more vulnerable they may be.
What kind of missile would you use against these bombers, and at what distance?
Now keep in mind that the enemy can stay in the air for a while far within their friendly airspace, and then suddenly start a dash towards you at a speed of Mach2.
In cases like this, I would believe that having a few F-22 around (possibly from land based air bases in the area) would be a good addition to the fighters on the carrier, simply because the F-22 could much more easily dance with the enemy bombers as they were repositioning.
What now? A Kinzhal will probably fly that far, but it won't hit a moving ship at that distance.
Kh-55 has a similar range, but lower speed (sea-skimming, though).
Then there is the Kh-32 with operational range stated as 600-1000km.
And then there are plenty of missiles of ranges from 300-1000km.
Also, China is actively developing similar systems.
I suppose it's classified at what ranges these systems would be able hit targets such as carriers. But if they're able to at all, it would be at rangers much beyond what you can defend against with aim120/aim160 missiles.
RIM 161/SM3 would provide some protection, but they are probably not very accurate at the extreme ranges, especially if targetting supersonic attackers.
Which means that interceptors may be the best option. Against large groups of enemies, the speed of the interceptor is still relevant, and there are certainly some in the Navy that worries about the loss of the F14, in particular in the Pacific.
For now, I suppose it makes sense to have some F22's and F15's in the general area where such conflicts could take place.
Which may be true in a land attack role, but is obviously not the case in an anti-ship role (if that capability really exists at all!).
Realistically, you'll be very happy if you hit a target 300km away with current anti-ship missiles.
If it has any kind of ability to home in on the ship based on radar, sattelite or similar, it shouldn't matter much if it's fired from 200km or 2000km. And even less if it carries a nuke. Even at 40kn, a ship doesn't go THAT far in 3 minutes.
Of course, if it's not performing per specification, it wouldn't be the first time for a Russian weapon system. So it makes sense to take the claims with a grain of salt.
The main point, though, is that in some places, it's hard to protect important assets from all angles against enemies that are a lot faster. This may not be all that important in Eastern Europe. It might be more important in the Arctic, Middle Eastern or Pacific theatres, though.
At the very least, speed allows each plane to patrol a larger area in relatively remote places.
The F22 is an air-superiority fighter. To quote Wikipeda interceptor role is mostly dead:
> the strategic threat moved from bombers to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Dedicated interceptor designs became rare, with the only widely used examples designed after the 1960s being the Panavia Tornado ADV, Mikoyan MiG-25, Mikoyan MiG-31, and the Shenyang J-8.
I'd note the most recent of any of those is the Mig31 (operational since 1981, production finished in 1994). It's worth reading combat reports from Ukraine against the Mig31 - where it is being used in an air-superiority role. There the big advantage of the Mig31 is its R-37 missile (range 200+ miles).
The "multi-role" thing is what made developing and debugging the F-35 such a pain.
However, that seems to be paying off as now it gets manufactured in more and more volume.
Not so much the multi role part as the fact that it's really 3 different aircraft that they tried to make as similar as possible.
Had they only made the F35A, with the rules of F35B and C covered by other planes, then it would probably be either cheaper or more capable in some ways.
Supersonic flight without afterburners (supercruise). In theory, at least, that should be a huge advantage on either side of an interception scenarios.
Using F-16 the baseline, Rafale is 30x smaller, F-35 is 600x smaller and F-22 is 6000x smaller. So there's a factor 10 in favor of the F-22 when compared to the F-35. On top of that F-22 is said to be more optimized in all directions, while for the F-35 the focus was more on the frontal RCS, so the F-22 overall average RCS is probably even better.
Europeans will note that in terms of RCS, the 4.5 Gen moniker of Rafale/EF is well deserved: halfway between an F-16 and an F-35...
[1] Figures gathered from this thread: http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/20630-rafale/page/202...
When it WAS in production, it was 2 decades ahead of anything else. Had it been the F35 in production at that time, it too would be illegal to export.