For a B1R, you are looking at a major hit in range if you tried to shove the F119 in there. Even a F135 might be a challenge balancing range.
As for the radar, they are already rolling out new AESA to the B1b fleet. Its a derivative of the APG83 which is has a lot of goodies from the APG81 and 77 (F-35 and F22 set)
Similar to what they are shoving in f-16's except with a huge array
As for the concept, I don't think we are ready for the endless TU-28 jokes from the Kremlin if we were to move forward with it.
My house is a stealthy compared to a B-52.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is designed to be a highly agile dogfighter, as is the SU-35, however in an Air-to-Air environment, the US would be fielding F-22's.
The F-35, on the other hand, is designed as a multipurpose aircraft with good dogfighting characteristics, however the real meat of a fighter aircraft is not how agile it is or how fast it is, but the avionics package, and that's something the F-35 trumps both the Typhoon and the SU-35. It's even better and more advanced than the F-22.
I think people will find the F-35 to be exceptionally lethal in most environments.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is designed to be a highly agile dogfighter, as is the SU-35, however in an Air-to-Air environment, the US would be fielding F-22's.
The F-35, on the other hand, is designed as a multipurpose aircraft with good dogfighting characteristics, however the real meat of a fighter aircraft is not how agile it is or how fast it is, but the avionics package, and that's something the F-35 trumps both the Typhoon and the SU-35. It's even better and more advanced than the F-22.
I think people will find the F-35 to be exceptionally lethal in most environments.
I think people will find the F-35 to be exceptionally lethal in most environments.
Have they ever put the F-22 against the F-35? There's a reason why the F-22 can't be exported.
Opponents were more blunt. The F-22, said Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, is a "billion-dollar cancer eating a hole in the Air Force."
When the F-22 was "new" they didn't want to export it because the Israelis were dicks back in the 90s and David Obey wanted to kill the program. He is the one who pushed the export ban.
The Obey amendment and "the ban on exports" was as much about starving the program of orders and killing it than it was for any romantic or whimsical reason you can think of.
In the 90's everyone and their mother were trying to steal funds from the program and think of creative ways to kill the program.
The F-22 isn't new anymore and if lines were open chances are Japan and Australia would be offered a couple.
From a tech standpoint, the F-35 is way ahead. From materials to design. It should be.
The radar is based off the F-22 and more capable.
The engines are based off the F-22's and are more powerful, easier to build and maintain and fuel efficient.
Unlike the nightmare maintenance on the F-22 coatings back when it was introduced, the f-35 can actually not bankrupt a country to keep it in tip top shape.
The F-22 is behind the F-35.
There is no reason not to export F-22's to our Allies who are not dickheads.
Except for that whole "the Obeys and Mcains of the world" finally killing the lines several years ago.
From a performance standpoint, the F-22 is unmatched . At high altitude, its is a god. Typhoon and Mig-31s can play up at f-22 heights but they are not even close.
From low to medium altitudes it pisses opponents
Except against T-38's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ
T-38's will ruin your day
And it was the Israelis that caused the F-22 to not be exported, because they are honorless, disloyal traitors. They have been turning around and selling all our shit to Russia and China.
David R. Obey, D-WI 7th
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think the House needs to understand the history of this. Back in 1997, when the F-22 was first being contemplated, there was a controversy about whether it should be built, whether it was needed, given the capability of our other aircraft. We were told that we had to go ahead and construct the plane because we had given away so much technology by selling other high performance aircraft, F-15s, F-16s, that we had to regain our technological edge.
So I said, well, if that is the case, if we are going to build the thing, at least let's make certain that we hang onto our technology edge this time. Hence, the language in section 8057.
Opponents were more blunt. The F-22, said Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, is a "billion-dollar cancer eating a hole in the Air Force."
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Appropriations
subcommittee that first proposed killing initial production funds for the
F-22, said the committee wants the Air Force to look closely at its
priorities and determine whether the F-22 is taking up too much room.
"The Air Force has such tremendous needs in so many other areas -- air
tankers, airlift transports, aerial reconnaissance -- that we believe it
is imperative for the Air Force to reassess its priorities," said Lewis, who
is among the most hawkish of Republicans.
In his camp is Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., a liberal Democrat who for years
has complained about Pentagon budget excess.
The Air Force is "in the same boat as a lot of American families," Obey
said. "They may want to buy a Cadillac or a Mercedes, but in the end they may
have to compromise and buy a Chevy or a Ford."
To bolster their cause, Lewis and his supporters produced a defense bill
that gives something back to each district that would take a hit from the
cancellation of initial F-22 production.
And, the Appropriations Committee has some powerful F-22 critics in its ranks. Ranking member Jerry Lewis (R-California) has fought the Raptor for years, believing that the Air Force fighter could impact the Super Hornet and F-35 programs that directly benefit his district. Committee Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin and the Defense Appropriations Sub-Committee Chairman (Pennsylvania's Jack Murtha) have also voted against F-22 legislation in the past. Given that record, it's not surprising that the Appropriations panel raided the Raptor upgrade account to pay for PCS moves.
The engines are based off the F-22's and are more powerful, easier to build and maintain and fuel efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Overview
The F-35 has I guess 50,000 lbf for it's one engine. The F-22 has TWO engines for a combined thrust of 70,000 lbf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Overview
The F-35 has I guess 50,000 lbf for it's one engine. The F-22 has TWO engines for a combined thrust of 70,000 lbf.
The F-35 engine is specifically made for a single-engine VTOL platform, and it is substantially bigger I believe, which would probably require a complete rework of the F-22 airframe, and thus would probably require building all new aircraft. Not sure if the engines have a huge effect on stealth, or if it is mostly the nozzles, but I believe the F-22 is also much stealthier when it comes to the engines and exhaust.
Wrong
F-135 is an evolution of the F119
F-135
Length - 220 in (5.59 m)
Inlet Diameter - 43 in (1.09 m)
Maximum Diameter - 46 in (1.17 m)
F-119
Length - 203 in
Inlet Diameter - 43 in (1.09 m)
Maximum Diameter - 46 in (1.17 m)
You can technically roll out F135s to F-22 but since there might be tradeoffs. F119's are gas guzzlers but they are great for high speed hijinks in the way old turbo jets are.
Also, the F-135 isn't designed to be exclusive to one aircraft type.
Also remember that the f-135 comes in 3 flavors
F135-PW-100 - standard one. Find a hole where it will fit and stick it in. You'll see a variant of this in the B21.
F135-PW-600 - Comes with lift fan accessory set and extra commemorative trading cards
F135-PW-400 - Naval application (crap to handle salt water and carrier life)
Finally, you could probably adapt any aircraft that current uses the GE F110 to use a F135. (F110s are used in F16's, F-15s and was the engine that turned the F-14 into a monster).
The GE F110 is the skinny girl version of the F101 (Used in the B1b)
To make it even more whacky, the alternate engine program for the F-35 involved the GE f136 which was bigger then the F135
One particular issue that is a must have for any F-22 engine is the ability of the F-119 to supercruise. Can the F-135 supercruise, or have the performance characteristics been heavily modified?
One particular issue that is a must have for any F-22 engine is the ability of the F-119 to supercruise. Can the F-135 supercruise, or have the performance characteristics been heavily modified?
F-35 has not been stated to be supercruise capable. Wiki says it can do Mach 1.2 on dry thrust alone, which is "supercruise" though usually it's Mach numbers in the 1.5+ range that are often considered "real supercruise".
Comparing the F135 to the F119, the bypass ratio is 0.57 to 0.30 respectively. The faster you want to cruise, generally the less bypass you want because of the thrust and thrust velocities you can obtain which are going to play a hand in how fast you can go. However, a sizeable bypass provides cooling air for the engine and a significant amount of unburned oxygen for use in afterburning, hence why modern A/B engines see about 50% jump in thrust with A/B compared to military power. Very low bypass turbofans, like the F119 and F414 (0.25), are often referred to as "leaky turbojets" because of the low ratios.
What is of more interest to me is the YF120, which was a technically variable cycle engine, as it could change it's bypass ratio to better suit the flight regime. Most important pieces of information on it are classified, but in combination with the YF-23, it was likely quite a dazzler (though expensive). I've read rumors stating Mach 1.8+ achievable in supercruise. We'll likely never know the truth.
I think the F-22 has better stealth than the F-35, or at least stealth from all sides, while the F-35 might only be very stealthy from the front and sides, and has bad rear stealth. Not 100% sure though.
Also the F-22 has had advances from the F-35 put into upgrades on the F-22, including the new stealth materials from the F-35, and I believe the new radar and avionics upgrades as well.
Also, the F-22 is probably the best performing aircraft, at least in the American inventory, and probably outperforms most Russian aircraft as well, except perhaps some of their newer stuff like the Su-35, Su-37, and PAK-FA. The Russians have put a premium on aircraft maneuverability, but they do not have anywhere near the same stealth, except for the new PAK-FA, and thus they will probably lose any air-to-air combat, unless they happen to get upgraded with some very advanced radars and very long range missiles.
15 out of 200 aircraft produced where the aircraft in question is a brand new design.The issue has been traced back to cooling lines manufactured by one particular provider that have only been installed in the wing fuel tanks of the 15 aircraft.
Not a big deal.
Just got a bad batch from the supplier.
15 out of 200 aircraft produced where the aircraft in question is a brand new design.
This on the other hand is a big fucking deal
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ning-lockheed-martins-f-35-aegis-missle-17695
True, but the joke was far more important.
BREAKING: the F-35
Now that is interesting. Would it be possible for the F-35 to carry some sort of ABM missiles?