My buddy ELP has a new post up on why the F-35 doesn't need the F-22. I'll let you read the post but the passage that has me wanting to put my fist through a wall is this....
While not a long range bomber like the B-2, the FB-22 would be survivable and carry enough payload and have enough reach for a wide variety of operations. This, combined with the USAF displaying some common sense and getting in on the U.S. Navy UCAS-N program would provide great future options (and deterrence) in the Pacific Rim. The Federal Budget may be in such dire straits that it won’t be able to afford a long range bomber program in the coming years.Budget concerns aside (which I agree with), the myth of the long ranged F-22 and its proposed derivatives is something that must be slain. Figures from Wikipedia (yes, I know Wiki isn't reliable but hey..it'll do for the purposes of this exercise)....
F-22
Combat radius: 410 nmi[195] (471 mi, 759 km)
F-35
Combat radius: over 590 nmi (1,090 km) on internal fuel[178]
Oh and to add a little pain to the F-22 advocates out there...GUESS WHAT! Even the F-35B will be longer ranged than the F-22 if they're both in stealth configuration.
We can have the conversation about these airplanes, but a little truth would be appreciated.
People rave about the F-22 and it's supercruise, but guess what? Flying supersonically burns plenty of gas, no matter whether you do it with reheat or with an enormous amount of mil thrust. Why do people think civilian airliners don't fly supersonically? Flying supersonically is less efficient than flying subsonically and burns more fuel and reduces engine life accordingly. The effect on the F-22 corresponds to this truism.
ReplyDeleteIt is a bigger heavier fighter than the F-35, generates far more thrust from it's 2 earlier generation engines, but carries only marginally more fuel AND spends a lot of time flying supersonically, whereas the F-35 mission profile does NOT require it to do so. Is it any real surprise the F-35 is likely to outrange the F-22?
The problem with the "APA" parrot crowd, including Eric, is they fixated on aeroshell performance and ignore any other aspect or brush it off as being irrelevant. The fact is THEIR opinion is what is irrelevant, as shown time and time again by professional military forces all round the world continue to take the option which is supposedly "wrong" or "flawed".
History shows that the overwhelmingly dominant aspect of air combat is superior situational awareness. The old "attacking out of the sun" tactic wasn't developed to cover for inferior performance it was developed to gain the all important element of surprise over your opponent in the day when 1 v 1 fighter combat WAS important.
Their fixation with aeroshell performance demonstrates a significant (and arguably obsessive) intention to deliberately deny reality.
Their pathetic attempts to show the F-35 as something akin to a modern F-105 Thunderchief, demonstrates this most aptly.
If the aeroshell performance and agility argument was as persuasive as these gits would have us believe, then quite simply that aircraft would NOT have achieved 28 air to air combat victories in Vietnam against more agile aircraft, purposely built as "fighters".
"Just so Flawed" indeed...
wow. so well said Aussie Digger. I think that comment will get its own post tonight!
ReplyDelete