T-50 and F-35
HindStrike
Active member
One is a heavy class, long range, twin engine, stealthy air superiority fighter and the other is a light to medium weight, medium range, single engine, stealthy strike fighter.
Korean Seaboy
Active member
Nope. More like replacing the expensive F-22. The F-35 is basically the cheaper, agile, smaller version of the F-22
maybe dude...but in israeli case,they ordred f-35 to replace the f-16,wich truly become un-able ti fit in modern warfare,specialy with the new su-27,su-30,mig-35,and su-37.
note: well,the f-22 raptor never entred full service yet,so it can't be replacing the f22.:visor::angel:
HindStrike
Active member
The f-22 is far superior to the f-35, why would they replace the f-22 with the f-35?
The F-22A is designed an air superiority fighter, only. The politicians played with the budget for a couple years and the USAF played with the F-22 being able to dropped smart bombs from 60,000ft. After the budget mess, the USAF went back to the original intentions and the F-22A has only one role, offensive power projection to protect the other fighter-bombers over some country.
The F-35 is to replace and designed with similar missions of the AV-8B, F-16C &, F/A-18C. (Yes.... a 'camel' is a horse designed by a committee! This proves it.)
The F-22A is designed to be extremely stealthy when it approaches the enemy head-on. Operating at altitudes of 60,000ft (19,292m) and more plus being able to maneuver well at those altitudes. For IR suppression the TVC is designed to reduce the IR signature to the point it is difficult to attack except for from below between the five to seven o'clock position. It flies high enough where contrails don't exist.
The F-35 is designed to be very stealthy from all directions (to protect it from SAMs and radar directed AAA). From other directions it is stealthy but it still more stealthy (most) other aircraft. It has some air to air capability but, nowhere near the F-22As. Its air to air capability is supposed to be around that of the F-16F (Blk #60).... good but not fantastic.
The F-35 benefited from a lot of technology of the F-22 program. If the more saved money from the F-22 program, those funds should be subtracted from the F-22 program!
The F-14A became operation in late 1974 and the F-15A in early 1975. The Su-27 started operation in 1984, with the PVO a years later. The PVO had first deliveries on the Su-27. The V-VS got its first operational planes in 1986 and fully operational by 1988.
The S-37 or Su-47, was a test vehicle to iron out problems which plagued the Su-27 for a decade, (two test pilots killed and four test aircraft crashed). The Su-27 started its design around the same time the F-14A and F-15A... 1969. The lack of accuracy in 'computer simulations' was the crux of the T-10's lack of development. The S-37 remedied this situation. It enhanced computer simulations and advanced the technologies that allowed the S-37 to have forward swept wings. Similar to some of USAF/NASA's X-craft programs.
I have read a fair amount about the T-50 and J20. Actually pieces are more speculation than anything else! We know their role is not exactly the same as the F-22. Looking at the crew of the J20, the plane 'looks' significantly larger than the F-22A. Giving the speculators lots of things to write about. Vladimir Putin President of the Russian Federation said the T-50 will not have the power projection role like the F-22A has. A lot of people have their favorites mainly based upon nationalism and esthetics!
The F-35 is to replace and designed with similar missions of the AV-8B, F-16C &, F/A-18C. (Yes.... a 'camel' is a horse designed by a committee! This proves it.)
The F-22A is designed to be extremely stealthy when it approaches the enemy head-on. Operating at altitudes of 60,000ft (19,292m) and more plus being able to maneuver well at those altitudes. For IR suppression the TVC is designed to reduce the IR signature to the point it is difficult to attack except for from below between the five to seven o'clock position. It flies high enough where contrails don't exist.
The F-35 is designed to be very stealthy from all directions (to protect it from SAMs and radar directed AAA). From other directions it is stealthy but it still more stealthy (most) other aircraft. It has some air to air capability but, nowhere near the F-22As. Its air to air capability is supposed to be around that of the F-16F (Blk #60).... good but not fantastic.
The F-35 benefited from a lot of technology of the F-22 program. If the more saved money from the F-22 program, those funds should be subtracted from the F-22 program!
The F-22A entered service back in late 2005! It on one on one combat it will not compare with Su-27, Su-30. I have little knowledge on the MiG-35.
The F-14A became operation in late 1974 and the F-15A in early 1975. The Su-27 started operation in 1984, with the PVO a years later. The PVO had first deliveries on the Su-27. The V-VS got its first operational planes in 1986 and fully operational by 1988.
The S-37 or Su-47, was a test vehicle to iron out problems which plagued the Su-27 for a decade, (two test pilots killed and four test aircraft crashed). The Su-27 started its design around the same time the F-14A and F-15A... 1969. The lack of accuracy in 'computer simulations' was the crux of the T-10's lack of development. The S-37 remedied this situation. It enhanced computer simulations and advanced the technologies that allowed the S-37 to have forward swept wings. Similar to some of USAF/NASA's X-craft programs.
I have read a fair amount about the T-50 and J20. Actually pieces are more speculation than anything else! We know their role is not exactly the same as the F-22. Looking at the crew of the J20, the plane 'looks' significantly larger than the F-22A. Giving the speculators lots of things to write about. Vladimir Putin President of the Russian Federation said the T-50 will not have the power projection role like the F-22A has. A lot of people have their favorites mainly based upon nationalism and esthetics!
The Israeli AF had no choice, either they buy the F-35 (without the source codes) or buy some other fighter. Another fighter would not have the great purchasing deals Israel that gets. To borrow millions of dollars for a fighter with a reduced price with one per cent loans, etc.!
Yeah i feel you...and they will use the new air-fighters to blow up palestinians heads :sorry:;-)
i think that the t50 is a powerful fighter mechaniclly but when it comes to avionics the f35 is superior lets be reasonable the unted states and alote of countries contributed to the project and some of the hold old experiance with the production of stealth fighters which makes their productes better than the russian ones
HindStrike
Active member
That is true but the russians have been catching up. The radar in the t-50 is called SH121. It has L-band aesa antennas in the leading edge slats on the wings as well as two side looking x-band antennas in the nose in addition to the main array. It won't be as advanced as the f-35s radar but it will have greater peak power and detection ranges than the f-35.
Last edited:
F-35 is medium fighter on 2nd generation stealth panel layer designed to replace F-16 and F/A-18.
PAK-FA T-50 is Russian block twin engine heavy fighter probably with generation 1 stealth panel layer reversed engineered from F-117A shot down over Serbia. Just like how they reversed engineered the AIM-9B Sidewinder into AA-2 Atoll IR guided missile. The Soviet Union was believed to get their very first aviation tech from captured Germans BF-109 duplicated into Mig-1 in WW2 and their first turbojet engine from British as gift after WW2.
If the Russians managed to develop successful stealth technology in T-50, those that will never had the chance to own F-35 will be happy to buy something similar. Even if the T-50 is layered with generation 1 stealth panel, it will not be as stealthy as F-22 but could still be invisible to radar at more than 20Nm away or less, depends on how well they could duplicate and modify the tech from F-117.
Though the US & NATO claimed that F-117's radar was turned on, in fact the F-117 does not even have proper radar, relying on optronic sensor/targeting pod to lase targets. Serbians sources claimed the F-117 could be detected and tracked if the radar beam is directed at the plane less than 5Nm away. British and Aussies too attempted few sensors on B-2 that fly within their countries, found out that heat signature could still be captured at limited range. Based on these test conducted, they don't really trust stealth technology that much as Russians seems to fit their fighters with advanced IRST, passive radar and optronic sensor coupled with long range air to air missiles with various guidance IR, active radar and passive radar to defeat stealth fighters. The T-50 even has rear AESA/PESA radar incorporated with RWR plus powerful jammer to increase survival rate against incoming missiles and to compete more advanced stealth fighters. Even the upgraded Su-27SM, Su-30MK and Su-35BM have some of these features.
PAK-FA T-50 is Russian block twin engine heavy fighter probably with generation 1 stealth panel layer reversed engineered from F-117A shot down over Serbia. Just like how they reversed engineered the AIM-9B Sidewinder into AA-2 Atoll IR guided missile. The Soviet Union was believed to get their very first aviation tech from captured Germans BF-109 duplicated into Mig-1 in WW2 and their first turbojet engine from British as gift after WW2.
If the Russians managed to develop successful stealth technology in T-50, those that will never had the chance to own F-35 will be happy to buy something similar. Even if the T-50 is layered with generation 1 stealth panel, it will not be as stealthy as F-22 but could still be invisible to radar at more than 20Nm away or less, depends on how well they could duplicate and modify the tech from F-117.
Though the US & NATO claimed that F-117's radar was turned on, in fact the F-117 does not even have proper radar, relying on optronic sensor/targeting pod to lase targets. Serbians sources claimed the F-117 could be detected and tracked if the radar beam is directed at the plane less than 5Nm away. British and Aussies too attempted few sensors on B-2 that fly within their countries, found out that heat signature could still be captured at limited range. Based on these test conducted, they don't really trust stealth technology that much as Russians seems to fit their fighters with advanced IRST, passive radar and optronic sensor coupled with long range air to air missiles with various guidance IR, active radar and passive radar to defeat stealth fighters. The T-50 even has rear AESA/PESA radar incorporated with RWR plus powerful jammer to increase survival rate against incoming missiles and to compete more advanced stealth fighters. Even the upgraded Su-27SM, Su-30MK and Su-35BM have some of these features.
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
There have been doubts over the F 35's abitilty to hold it's own in an WVR engagement with some Eastern Airframes.
Main focus of those concerns were Chinese copied Su 30's and Russian multirole Sukhoi 35 BMs. The reason behind these concerns is not the stealth factor, it's the airframe versitility and ruggedness factor.
Russian designs have for decades been in many respects superior in manuverability and capability in the airframe department.
Heavy body fighters like the Su 27 can in some cases move like much lighter U.S. fighters. However as modern air combat demonstates a majority of combat will focus on BVR engagments, with opponents so far away from each other they have a small chance of even making visual combat.
At this range as depicted in Desert Storm, superior avionics and software are king, a modified airliner with the right combat software and weapon systems can do the same thing a fighter can in some BVR scenarios.
But back to the JSF, in a close in engagement concern mounts of the F 35's climb rate and power to weight ratio. And the clear fact that while less sophisticated avionics wise, a savy pair of pilots in for say some Su 35's could over come a F 35 in a close in engagment. They have more power response and very good low speed manueverability.
This concern is also making way into the aging F 18 Super Hornet's capabilities.
Although the F 22 is an impressive machine. An flight of F 22's are not going to be able to be at every engagement, and are also not carrier capable. So if the U.S. ever did attack a developed nation with it's own first rate airforce. Somewhere a engagement of lower calibre aircraft are going to be confronted by their oppisite side of the fighter jet coin...
Which could be something like along the line of a Chinese Su 30, or Russian Super Flanker E. More or less the "common rable" With the J 20 / Pak Fa in the same situation as the F 22A, a little to valuable for small air to air skirmishes.
Main focus of those concerns were Chinese copied Su 30's and Russian multirole Sukhoi 35 BMs. The reason behind these concerns is not the stealth factor, it's the airframe versitility and ruggedness factor.
Russian designs have for decades been in many respects superior in manuverability and capability in the airframe department.
Heavy body fighters like the Su 27 can in some cases move like much lighter U.S. fighters. However as modern air combat demonstates a majority of combat will focus on BVR engagments, with opponents so far away from each other they have a small chance of even making visual combat.
At this range as depicted in Desert Storm, superior avionics and software are king, a modified airliner with the right combat software and weapon systems can do the same thing a fighter can in some BVR scenarios.
But back to the JSF, in a close in engagement concern mounts of the F 35's climb rate and power to weight ratio. And the clear fact that while less sophisticated avionics wise, a savy pair of pilots in for say some Su 35's could over come a F 35 in a close in engagment. They have more power response and very good low speed manueverability.
This concern is also making way into the aging F 18 Super Hornet's capabilities.
Although the F 22 is an impressive machine. An flight of F 22's are not going to be able to be at every engagement, and are also not carrier capable. So if the U.S. ever did attack a developed nation with it's own first rate airforce. Somewhere a engagement of lower calibre aircraft are going to be confronted by their oppisite side of the fighter jet coin...
Which could be something like along the line of a Chinese Su 30, or Russian Super Flanker E. More or less the "common rable" With the J 20 / Pak Fa in the same situation as the F 22A, a little to valuable for small air to air skirmishes.
Last edited:
In case any F-35 stealth variant being detected and being intercepted by Su-30, it would rely on backup from conventional fighters EF2000, F-16/15/18 or F-35 with external load. Never fly the stealth variant F-35 with internal load alone without backup. The F-35 airframe should be tougher than F-16, probably better or less than the Su-30 as per JSF requirement. The F-35A/C is believed to have better turn rate than the F-16/18 with 50% internal fuel. The Su-27/30 max fuel tank capacity is 22,000lb of fuel but usually filled not more than 15,000lb.
The Flanker is designed with modules spread wide apart on edges of a giant kite. Despite being longer and wider, looking at its volume, it's just comparable to F-15E. The Su-30 cockpit is even smaller than F/A-18, the seats are less spacious. Anway, Su-27/30/33/35 are affordable and trustworthy fighters with add-ons for Western avionics despite being more fuel thirsty than F-15E. Compared the Su-27/30/35 to F-22/35 in terms of fuel consumption, wonder which is more fuel thirsty?
LM F-22 in fact failed some of the ATF requirement yet it was selected. Wonder things will be different if YF-23 was chosen instead? Having no better turn rate than F-22 does not mean it could not perform other tasks better, F/A-18 has poorer maneuverability than F-16, yet it could perform AA and AG roles well, even better yet could take more punishment like its elder brother F-15. ATF requirement and F-22's achievement result:
stealth - passed
internal weapons load - passed
weight less than 70,000lb - no?
within affordable flyaway cost - failed completely
affordable maintenance cost - ??? seems more costly than F-15, see how it goes.
to replace airforce F-15 and navy F-14 - failed, only replaced F-15 and F-117, too heavy for carrier take off and landing
supercruise and mach 2 capable - passed
Long range combat radius - passed
maneuverability - passed
superior BVR - passed
air to ground - F-22 is set for A-A only, too expensive for A-G especially risk getting holes on wings.Ground attack role passed to F-35.
F-22 and F-35 should have the advantage to score the first kill. Question is, will the Su-27/30/35 have the chance to detect/track the F-22 and F-35? Since F-22/35 fitted with stealth radar, the only chance Flankers had is to rely on its new advanced long range IRST. Also, struggle to survive by activating jammer and spoof while evade incoming missiles. Its radar incorporated RWR and EW should allow them to detect incoming missiles and direction of the bogeys that launched them. Heard they could even intercept incoming missiles with missiles this time with new AESA/PESA, not sure how true is this. If F-22 or 35 launched 4 AMRAAMs at Su-30 carrying 6 R-77 and 4 R-74, he should survive if he is able to intercept the 4 missiles with 4 R-77. At the end, it'll be knife duel with R-74, AIM-9X and guns. At less than 10Nm, the Flanker pilot should be able to use the IRST and helmet cue.
Website dedicated to the effort of Mc'D and Northrop engineers. Already forgotten by many, this is the best and the last aircraft ever made by Mc'D.
http://www.yf-23.net/menu.html
The Flanker is designed with modules spread wide apart on edges of a giant kite. Despite being longer and wider, looking at its volume, it's just comparable to F-15E. The Su-30 cockpit is even smaller than F/A-18, the seats are less spacious. Anway, Su-27/30/33/35 are affordable and trustworthy fighters with add-ons for Western avionics despite being more fuel thirsty than F-15E. Compared the Su-27/30/35 to F-22/35 in terms of fuel consumption, wonder which is more fuel thirsty?
LM F-22 in fact failed some of the ATF requirement yet it was selected. Wonder things will be different if YF-23 was chosen instead? Having no better turn rate than F-22 does not mean it could not perform other tasks better, F/A-18 has poorer maneuverability than F-16, yet it could perform AA and AG roles well, even better yet could take more punishment like its elder brother F-15. ATF requirement and F-22's achievement result:
stealth - passed
internal weapons load - passed
weight less than 70,000lb - no?
within affordable flyaway cost - failed completely
affordable maintenance cost - ??? seems more costly than F-15, see how it goes.
to replace airforce F-15 and navy F-14 - failed, only replaced F-15 and F-117, too heavy for carrier take off and landing
supercruise and mach 2 capable - passed
Long range combat radius - passed
maneuverability - passed
superior BVR - passed
air to ground - F-22 is set for A-A only, too expensive for A-G especially risk getting holes on wings.Ground attack role passed to F-35.
F-22 and F-35 should have the advantage to score the first kill. Question is, will the Su-27/30/35 have the chance to detect/track the F-22 and F-35? Since F-22/35 fitted with stealth radar, the only chance Flankers had is to rely on its new advanced long range IRST. Also, struggle to survive by activating jammer and spoof while evade incoming missiles. Its radar incorporated RWR and EW should allow them to detect incoming missiles and direction of the bogeys that launched them. Heard they could even intercept incoming missiles with missiles this time with new AESA/PESA, not sure how true is this. If F-22 or 35 launched 4 AMRAAMs at Su-30 carrying 6 R-77 and 4 R-74, he should survive if he is able to intercept the 4 missiles with 4 R-77. At the end, it'll be knife duel with R-74, AIM-9X and guns. At less than 10Nm, the Flanker pilot should be able to use the IRST and helmet cue.
Website dedicated to the effort of Mc'D and Northrop engineers. Already forgotten by many, this is the best and the last aircraft ever made by Mc'D.
http://www.yf-23.net/menu.html
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Right now there is at least a dozen or so Senate Armed Services Committee hearings covering costs, not met expectations, and the problems faced by both airframes.
Many of those who pushed both products still may be having their doubts by now.
Both machines are indeed amazing, but stealth technology in it's present state shows, that in order to acheive maximum invisibility, hard points on the external fueslage cannot be used, leaving the aircraft with less weapons on tap to contront an adversary.
The F 22 being at a particular situation, being unable to be used for almost any air to ground role. Except maybe the delevery of a Small Diameter Bomb.
This alone can spread doubt about the cost of investment both in time and money into an airframe with such low versitility. The F 35 as well must as mentioned be backed up in any serious air to air engagment if it is using only it's internal weapons load.
If a stealth aircraft has to be backed up by conventional aircraft, then the idea of a all stealth strike force against air to air foes is broken. The stealth aircraft are at a disadvantage against a more well armed adversary spare their masking technology. As long as conventional aircraft are required to back them up what's the point of retiring any conventional airframe?
Also , about the Su 30 cockpit being small.... It's predecessor was designed in the 70's for small, shorter Soviet Pilots. So by American good ole' boy standards it may be a little cramped.
Lastly there will continue to be the ever going struggle of munitions against technology , the only difference is that surface to air defense seems to be outpacing stealth materials used in aircraft.
Let's not forget remarks of the F 117 A being "completley undetectable" and being downed by a 1960's era weapon system.
Many of those who pushed both products still may be having their doubts by now.
Both machines are indeed amazing, but stealth technology in it's present state shows, that in order to acheive maximum invisibility, hard points on the external fueslage cannot be used, leaving the aircraft with less weapons on tap to contront an adversary.
The F 22 being at a particular situation, being unable to be used for almost any air to ground role. Except maybe the delevery of a Small Diameter Bomb.
This alone can spread doubt about the cost of investment both in time and money into an airframe with such low versitility. The F 35 as well must as mentioned be backed up in any serious air to air engagment if it is using only it's internal weapons load.
If a stealth aircraft has to be backed up by conventional aircraft, then the idea of a all stealth strike force against air to air foes is broken. The stealth aircraft are at a disadvantage against a more well armed adversary spare their masking technology. As long as conventional aircraft are required to back them up what's the point of retiring any conventional airframe?
Also , about the Su 30 cockpit being small.... It's predecessor was designed in the 70's for small, shorter Soviet Pilots. So by American good ole' boy standards it may be a little cramped.
Lastly there will continue to be the ever going struggle of munitions against technology , the only difference is that surface to air defense seems to be outpacing stealth materials used in aircraft.
Let's not forget remarks of the F 117 A being "completley undetectable" and being downed by a 1960's era weapon system.
Last edited:
You can only say that a system is good after it saw some action. And in every war there are surprises good and bad.
The F-117 was shot down by visual means something that is impossible for modern systems. The SA-2 in Vietnam could also be fired visual, the Nike Hercules not.
The F-117 was shot down by visual means something that is impossible for modern systems. The SA-2 in Vietnam could also be fired visual, the Nike Hercules not.
Hi Yossarian and VDKMS,
The F-117 shot down over Serbia case, the story from Serbians:
US aircraft would always fly on fixed waypoint taking the same route over and over again thinking that it's safe since that route considered safer zone.
The Serbians took this opportunity to shoot down any US aircraft they could find, to prevent detection, they had their radar off and quietly mobilized SAMs and radar over the route. They use sound receiver, visual and spotter scout to detect aircraft instead. . They happen to find the F-117, spotter alerted the SAM operators with the radar aligned first followed by the SAM facing backward so that the aircraft would fly pass, track it from the rear and fire the missile. If it's IR guided, it'll go after the exhaust. They had the radar antenna aimed at the F-117 and surprised that it could track the aircraft. As soon as it gets a lock, the fired the SAM and it hit. The range was less than 5Nm away. The missile was not fired visually but was guided by the radar.
Their experiment has proven that stealth could be detected if the target is below certain range. The British and Aussies too have conducted their experiment on defeating stealth using friendly US B-2 as test subject operating from friendly airbases. The visual, optronic sensor, IRST and laser range finder too could track B-2 under limited range as per their claims . Stealth is a pro but aircraft manufacturer must not forgo others and rely on stealth completely. Doing so is like repeating US mistakes to drop the main gun from fighter in 1960's when they 1st had the AIM-7. Even AIM-120 is not at 100% hit rate, against older fighters, the successful hit rate is at 70%+ based on air engagement over Iraq and Serbia. Against newer than 4th generation fighters such as Su-30MK with proper RWR incorporated with AESA/PESA plus powerful jammer pods, it is estimated the AIM-120 hit rate would drop to 60%. I think future conventional fighters will always carry advanced long range and short range IR guided missiles as it is the only seeker it could rely on taking down stealth fighters.
1 single F-35 with just 4 AAMs vs Su-30MK (with effective RWR, EW, ECM and AESA), it could take down 2 Su-30MK and then flee. Visual range dogfight is not encouraged to prevent expensive F-35 from getting damaged or shot down by IR missiles/guns. The backup conventional fighters EF2000, F-15/16/18 will fly in to finish the rest. In Bosnia, 1 F-15C would fire 2 AIM-120C at 1 Mig-29, if first missile spoofed, hope the second missile would hit.
The F-117 shot down over Serbia case, the story from Serbians:
US aircraft would always fly on fixed waypoint taking the same route over and over again thinking that it's safe since that route considered safer zone.
The Serbians took this opportunity to shoot down any US aircraft they could find, to prevent detection, they had their radar off and quietly mobilized SAMs and radar over the route. They use sound receiver, visual and spotter scout to detect aircraft instead. . They happen to find the F-117, spotter alerted the SAM operators with the radar aligned first followed by the SAM facing backward so that the aircraft would fly pass, track it from the rear and fire the missile. If it's IR guided, it'll go after the exhaust. They had the radar antenna aimed at the F-117 and surprised that it could track the aircraft. As soon as it gets a lock, the fired the SAM and it hit. The range was less than 5Nm away. The missile was not fired visually but was guided by the radar.
Their experiment has proven that stealth could be detected if the target is below certain range. The British and Aussies too have conducted their experiment on defeating stealth using friendly US B-2 as test subject operating from friendly airbases. The visual, optronic sensor, IRST and laser range finder too could track B-2 under limited range as per their claims . Stealth is a pro but aircraft manufacturer must not forgo others and rely on stealth completely. Doing so is like repeating US mistakes to drop the main gun from fighter in 1960's when they 1st had the AIM-7. Even AIM-120 is not at 100% hit rate, against older fighters, the successful hit rate is at 70%+ based on air engagement over Iraq and Serbia. Against newer than 4th generation fighters such as Su-30MK with proper RWR incorporated with AESA/PESA plus powerful jammer pods, it is estimated the AIM-120 hit rate would drop to 60%. I think future conventional fighters will always carry advanced long range and short range IR guided missiles as it is the only seeker it could rely on taking down stealth fighters.
1 single F-35 with just 4 AAMs vs Su-30MK (with effective RWR, EW, ECM and AESA), it could take down 2 Su-30MK and then flee. Visual range dogfight is not encouraged to prevent expensive F-35 from getting damaged or shot down by IR missiles/guns. The backup conventional fighters EF2000, F-15/16/18 will fly in to finish the rest. In Bosnia, 1 F-15C would fire 2 AIM-120C at 1 Mig-29, if first missile spoofed, hope the second missile would hit.
Last edited:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I never said it was visually guided, however that there is and will be a continual race between tracking systems, Air Defense systems and stealth materials and masking techniques.
This will continue until either anti air measures and weapons over come stealth, or Unmanned stealth technologies overcome the later.
At this rate the stealth option not only seems costly, but low on the delivery scale.
This will continue until either anti air measures and weapons over come stealth, or Unmanned stealth technologies overcome the later.
At this rate the stealth option not only seems costly, but low on the delivery scale.
Hi Yossarian,
That was reply to VDKMS, just to make things easy. I replied to both of you in 1 go.
The US, they'll have more UCAV in future, being remote controlled, it still face the risk of getting jammed or seized by hackers. Sooner or later, the Congress will call for more affordable conventional F-22 and F-35 to replace the aging F-15/16/18. Just not practical and feasible to have all F-22 and F-35 stealth to replace the 2000 US fighters inventory, it'll drive US bankrupt. They'll probably retain the F/A-18E/F as attack aircraft role.
That was reply to VDKMS, just to make things easy. I replied to both of you in 1 go.
The US, they'll have more UCAV in future, being remote controlled, it still face the risk of getting jammed or seized by hackers. Sooner or later, the Congress will call for more affordable conventional F-22 and F-35 to replace the aging F-15/16/18. Just not practical and feasible to have all F-22 and F-35 stealth to replace the 2000 US fighters inventory, it'll drive US bankrupt. They'll probably retain the F/A-18E/F as attack aircraft role.