American Air Craft F-35/F-22 not so good

[TheTman]

This video describes a war game where the F-35 and F-22, and some older aircraft, went up against modern Russian and Chinese aircraft. The results didn't pan out so well for the American jets. Probably due to Congress wanting a fighter that was capable or doing everything, but ended up with something that is capable of playing multiple roles, but was master of none of them. Kind of like the old saying that the Camel (or is it the Elephant) is a horse that was designed by Congress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M . If Congress would get out of the way, and let the engineers design purpose built aircraft, I bet we'd have fared much better.

[deadeye]

One size fits all is a wonderful thing. No? Think maybe the administration shouldn't be designing aircraft. Then again what else have they done that has worked? OK. Maybe Ovomitcare.

[Longitude Zero]

I know pilots who fly the F-22 and it is virtually unbeatable. Lumping it in with the F-35 is asinine of the video author. The F-35 is the do all...be all. The F-22 is NOT. It is a singular purposed air to air superiority fighter.

[JohnR]

They can't even build a website. Oh, but that was designed to fail.

No one really knows what role a future combat aircraft will need to fill. The development time is too long. Gone are the days when North American designed the thoroughbred P-51 and built a prototype in 90 days, and it became the best fighter of the war, and happened to work well in ground attack too.

[Longitude Zero]

Technology exists to take the weak link, pilot, out if fighters forever. When that happens the side that does will have a fighter that is basically invincible. Human pilots can tolerate a +10G maneuver for only a short time and neggies measured in microseconds.


Design a radio controlled fighter capable of -20 to +20 G's, it has already been done in a proof of concept, THAT fighter will probably never lose.

[getsome]

The F-22 Raptor is an incredible airplane, far surperior to anything flying now and you have to factor in American trained combat pilots are the best in the world bar none....The problem with the F-22 is extreme cost per aircraft and due to it's complexity it requires 40 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight time but when it's in the air nothing can touch it....

The F-35 program was pork filled from the git go and it remains to be seen how well it will perform in the real world....The Government has to keep the defence contractors in business but in reality I don't see anything at least on paper that the F-35 can do that an FA-18 Super Hornet can't do at least as well and at a way cheaper cost per aircraft....

[TheTman]

I often wonder how well aircraft's electronics are protected from EMP's they might encounter during a nuclear strike. I would think they would have thought of this while designing the aircraft, but you never know.


Also, I guess the F-22 program has been cancelled due to cost and lower than expected performance, and it being too easy to shoot down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL5jAxk94Ws
Some 60 Billion down the tubes. At 350 million per plane.
One of the men in the video, says that (a well placed I assume) .50 caliber bullet can knock the plane out.


BUT, who knows what is lurking in the Lockheed "Skunkworks", Area 51, and other high security areas.

[Longitude Zero]

BUT, who knows what is lurking in the Lockheed "Skunkworks", Area 51, and other high security areas.

A whole lot less than you might hope.

[TheTman]

I always figured these drones, were precursors to the pilotless fighter jet of the future. I can just see a room full of young adults, that grew up playing video games, sitting there controlling the jets, and watching the screen, just like a video game. They also have some cool robots being worked on, for boots on the ground missions. They aren't very versatile yet, but they are making progress. I'm not sure how much these dept. of defense videos show, when they demonstrate the robots, I pretty sure they aren't going show the latest and greatest.


Which leads to the question, that if we send robots out to fight our battles, is this going to cause more war, since fewer human lives will be at risk? At least we won't have the muck raking journalists causing a big fuss over some soldier pissing on a dead enemy combatant, and all the crap they raise when some soldier does something they deem unlawful. Pisses me off that in most of the wars we fight, that we are the only side that follows the Geneva Convention.

[Bawanna]

Well guess this is as good a time as any.


I'm an android. (Boots on the ground robot). Not the newest and bestest of course. That would be Greg.

I'm not ashamed.

[TheTman]

Mount a set of Ma Dueces on your buggy, and you would be a formidable foe Colonel.

[Alfonse]

The "visual range combat" is a key here. A stealth design is not as aerodynamically efficient at the Russian and Chinese aircraft. It is designed to get the first, kill shot off before it is detected, not dogfight. That said, it might still be garbage.

Consider this:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01...s-from-moscow/

[Longitude Zero]

The F-22 IS a very formidable dogfighter.

[Alfonse]

The F-22 IS a very formidable dogfighter.

Good to know.

[TheTman]

The Zero was a formidable dogfighter too, but couldn't take much punishment. I'm reading conflicting reports, 1 says that it can be shot down to easily, that .50 caliber bullets can knock it down, while the other says it has excellent survivability. Which is closet to the truth? It seems like we've always built our planes able to take a beating and keep on flying. But we mostly use missiles these days, and about any plane is going down when a missile hits it. I guess they mean anti-aircraft from ground fire when engaging surface targets.