Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[NewLakotah]

You still haven't answered my question really though. If the F-22 is "inferior" what is it inferior too?

And we are back to stat wanking. As I said before, it's not about comparing stats but about comparing actual expected performance. It does not need to be inferior stat vise to anything to be inferior operationally.

You can have the most superior of all tanks of WW2, the Tiger II with its nigh impenetrable armor and huge gun and on paper quite decent speed and mobility and can still suck operationally.

Purp, I know you've been in this thread long enough to see those claims and rumors about the F-22 debunked repeatedly.

The only thing I have seen is the two aircraft being showered with the same adoration fanboys shower the Panther and Tiger II with. Bottom line is that they aren't horrible aircraft. But they just aren't miracle weapons. And when it comes to choosing an aircraft to fit their roles I'd rather take a Rafale or some other tried and tested one than a F-35 that is yet to fly operationally.

Lol typical hate rant. You claim that it is inferior so therefore it has to be inferior to something else, some other aircraft. Also, you are saying that it is inferior since it sucks operationally. How? Where? What operation? And now you are comparing me to a Tiger fanboy? Really? Plus, I never said that it is the best fighter of all time, simply that currently no aircraft can match the F-22. There is a reason why Russia and China scrambled to begin their own 5th gen fighters.

[The Akasha Colony]

The only thing I have seen is the two aircraft being showered with the same adoration fanboys shower the Panther and Tiger II with. Bottom line is that they aren't horrible aircraft. But they just aren't miracle weapons. And when it comes to choosing an aircraft to fit their roles I'd rather take a Rafale or some other tried and tested one than a F-35 that is yet to fly operationally.

And yet the bottom line of your argument is that the F-22 was so bad that it was "terminated" and that the F-35 is no better. That seems to be an argument that they are "horrible aircraft." If supporting the aircraft's merits is "fanboyism," then you've just joined the legions of n00bs who come into the thread and shit all over the F-35 because they read some biased and uninformed news piece about it, or because they've lapped up too much Aus Air Power.

[Purpelia]

Lol typical hate rant. You claim that it is inferior so therefore it has to be inferior to something else, some other aircraft.

Yes it is inferior to the Rafale, the Eurofighter, the Su-27, the Mig-15 or hell the Spitfire. Any other fighter aircraft that you can afford to build and keep in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure a positive kill ratio on your favor. Since air combat is not about 1 on 1 matches.

I'd rather have 2.5 Typhoons than one F-22 not because the Typhoon is superior in any way but because 2.5 of them are. Or at least can be in 2 places at once and thus dodge it.

Also, you are saying that it is inferior since it sucks operationally. How? Where? What operation?

Well for a start we have the huge project and production costs that make it difficult to field a lot of them. Than we have the huge maintenance costs (which you can expect if the production costs for the parts are large) which won't make it any more reliable or available for use. It's stealth systems are vulnerable to adverse weather. Stuff like that.

But really above all it's going to be the production and operating costs.

And now you are comparing me to a Tiger fanboy?

Yes, yes am.

Really? Plus, I never said that it is the best fighter of all time, simply that currently no aircraft can match the F-22.

Which is why you are comparable to a tiger fanboy. You evaluate designs based on how they match up in 1 on 1 fights.

There is a reason why Russia and China scrambled to begin their own 5th gen fighters.[/quote]

And yet the bottom line of your argument is that the F-22 was so bad that it was "terminated" and that the F-35 is no better.

No, I did not make that argument. I was making an argument that the F-35 was not good for what the original person who asked wanted. Than later NewLakotah joined the discussion and among his points he mentioned that the F-35 was designed to support the F-22. I than pointed out that the F-22 might not be there for it to support, citing the obviously small numbers and mentioning on tangent that the original poster wanted the aircraft in question to be a multirole which did the roles of both and would thus not have a F-22 for it to support.

He than spun off a discussion on the F-22 from that.

It's all a consequence of the discussion spiraling away from the original "recommend me an aircraft" question.

[New Emphillon]

This video points out some flaws about the F-35 that I thought were shocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M
Now, being a novice in the technical details of aircraft, I can't really judge the F-35 too harshly. However, the one thing that makes me happy that I have Russian aircraft in my military is the price tag on a new F-35B. For that kind of price, I can buy nearly five Su-35Ss and have those to protect my skies.
Like Purpelia pointed out, it's not that the other aircraft are any better than the F-35, but the number of aircraft one could buy for nearly $200 million outweighs the quality of the F-35.

[Purpelia]

This video points out some flaws about the F-35 that I thought were shocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M
Now, being a novice in the technical details of aircraft, I can't really judge the F-35 too harshly. However, the one thing that makes me happy that I have Russian aircraft in my military is the price tag on a new F-35B. For that kind of price, I can buy nearly five Su-35Ss and have those to protect my skies.
Like Purpelia pointed out, it's not that the other aircraft are any better than the F-35, but the number of aircraft one could buy for nearly $200 million outweighs the quality of the F-35.

More importantly in the case of the F-35 the number of them you can buy today. Where as you would have to wait in line for a couple of more years for a F-35 purchase, and more years beyond that discovering and fixing all the unforeseen bugs that every production aircraft is going to have inevitably due to teething issues first hand by which time your own fighter could be improved gradually to match or supersede it.

[New Emphillon]

This video points out some flaws about the F-35 that I thought were shocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M
Now, being a novice in the technical details of aircraft, I can't really judge the F-35 too harshly. However, the one thing that makes me happy that I have Russian aircraft in my military is the price tag on a new F-35B. For that kind of price, I can buy nearly five Su-35Ss and have those to protect my skies.
Like Purpelia pointed out, it's not that the other aircraft are any better than the F-35, but the number of aircraft one could buy for nearly $200 million outweighs the quality of the F-35.

More importantly in the case of the F-35 the number of them you can buy today. Where as you would have to wait in line for a couple of more years for a F-35 purchase by which time your own fighter could be improved gradually to match or supersede it.

That is true. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia or China haven't already come up with something to counter the F-35, aside from the PAK FA and the J-20.

[Purpelia]

More importantly in the case of the F-35 the number of them you can buy today. Where as you would have to wait in line for a couple of more years for a F-35 purchase by which time your own fighter could be improved gradually to match or supersede it.

That is true. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia or China haven't already come up with something to counter the F-35, aside from the PAK FA and the J-20.

I don't think they need to. Ignoring the STOL/VTOL part the F-35 is ultimately just an evolution of the multirole concept with some stealth added on. It is not an air superiority fighter or nuclear bomber or anything like that which specifically needs countering. Any general development in aircraft or air defense is going to have an effect on it by default and that's enough.

If anything Russian development seems to be going in the other direction with the Su-34 and stuff like that.

[Kampala-]

Lol typical hate rant. You claim that it is inferior so therefore it has to be inferior to something else, some other aircraft.

Yes it is inferior to the Rafale, the Eurofighter, the Su-27, the Mig-15 or hell the Spitfire. Any other fighter aircraft that you can afford to build and keep in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure a positive kill ratio on your favor. Since air combat is not about 1 on 1 matches.

I'd rather have 2.5 Typhoons than one F-22 not because the Typhoon is superior in any way but because 2.5 of them are. Or at least can be in 2 places at once and thus dodge it.

Too bad Eurofighter and F-22 cost the same.

Typhoon might actually be more.

F-22 rules, Eurotrash drools. Get owned son.

[New Emphillon]

That is true. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia or China haven't already come up with something to counter the F-35, aside from the PAK FA and the J-20.

I don't think they need to. Ignoring the STOL/VTOL part the F-35 is ultimately just an evolution of the multirole concept with some stealth added on. It is not an air superiority fighter or nuclear bomber or anything like that which specifically needs countering. Any general development in aircraft or air defense is going to have an effect on it by default and that's enough.

If anything Russian development seems to be going in the other direction with the Su-34 and stuff like that.

Well the Russians seem to be putting some effort into the Su-34 because they added a galley and a toilet to it for the pilots. Seems like they were either looking to give Su-34 pilots some comfort or there were some extra rubles left over in the project's budget and the Russians said "Why not?" It's a nice feature to have, just unorthodox for a fighter-bomber based off of the Su-27.

[Oaledonia]

Yes it is inferior to the Rafale, the Eurofighter, the Su-27, the Mig-15 or hell the Spitfire. Any other fighter aircraft that you can afford to build and keep in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure a positive kill ratio on your favor. Since air combat is not about 1 on 1 matches.

I'd rather have 2.5 Typhoons than one F-22 not because the Typhoon is superior in any way but because 2.5 of them are. Or at least can be in 2 places at once and thus dodge it.

Too bad Eurofighter and F-22 cost the same.

Typhoon might actually be more.

F-22 rules, Eurotrash drools. Get owned son.

I, for one, am now using modified Drakens for ground attack.

F-22 > SU-anything

[Purpelia]

Too bad Eurofighter and F-22 cost the same.

Give me citations for your numbers. I got US$150 million per aircraft for the F-22 and 109.4 million per aircraft for the F-35. That puts the ratio at about 1.5 x in favor of the Eurofighter. Admittedly I forgot to convert the pounds to dollars in my original 2.5 times conversion. But still.

And rather than being canceled for it's problems the Typhoon is still in production and being marketed. Which is saying something.

Well the Russians seem to be putting some effort into the Su-34 because they added a galley and a toilet to it for the pilots. Seems like they were either looking to give Su-34 pilots some comfort or there were some extra rubles left over in the project's budget and the Russians said "Why not?" It's a nice feature to have, just unorthodox for a fighter-bomber based off of the Su-27.

Actually it's because they want to extend the operational range a lot. My guess would be that they want a dedicated long range interdiction/bomber style aircraft out of it.

[Oaledonia]

And rather than being canceled for it's problems

You think the F-22 was cancelled for it's problems? Stay away from Aus Airpower and RT, really dude.

[Purpelia]

And rather than being canceled for it's problems

You think the F-22 was cancelled for it's problems? Stay away from Aus Airpower and RT, really dude.

Given that it's main problem was that it cost a lot and making it better was only going to cost more and more and take more and more time...

Honestly, if you want my personal opinion on the aircraft, both of them wait until I edit this post...

[Oaledonia]

Given that it's main problem was that it cost a lot and making it better was only going to cost more and more and take more and more time...

You are making it sound like it had a major design error, knock it off.

[Purpelia]

Given that it's main problem was that it cost a lot and making it better was only going to cost more and more and take more and more time...

You are making it sound like it had a major design error, knock it off.

You did not wait. That is a bad man. A very bad man.

This said, I will say what I have none the less. Honestly, if you want my personal opinion on the aircraft, both of them here it is.

Ignore that the F-22 has been canceled for a moment. They are both decent aircraft concepts which once all the bugs are worked out and everything is finally fixed will cost something like 25%-50% more than they already do and will be fine examples of their kind. The problem right here and now is that whilst this is going to happen it is going to happen in the same time frame and at the same costs as other aircraft of comparable type and performance like the T-50 are going to be reaching full functionality. There might be a few years worth of gap, maybe 2-3 or 5 but that's it. You won't get the kind of performance they have or are meant to have on paper out of them today or in the next year or two.

So if the year is 2020-2025 and you are buying aircraft than be my guest and get one. But right here and right now, in 2014 I'd rather have a Typhoon or Rafale or Su-30 or an F-15 (just as the american government is going to).

[San-Silvacian]

How about instead: "its a production and maintenance nightmare that the american air force has finally decided to terminate"? Or did you miss that memo?

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Produ ... ermination

That literally just means "we didn't need any more because they were better than anything we might face." Doesn't mean the plane is bad, just means that they don't want or need to buy any more, not that the plane was bad.

The only thing that is around that can even give it a fair fight is the Russian PAK-FA.

And there are like 2 of them, that are protyotypes.

And still the Russian's can't make those magic engines yet. That they have been working on since the 1980s~

[The Akasha Colony]

And rather than being canceled for it's problems the Typhoon is still in production and being marketed. Which is saying something.

Yes. It says that Europe allows exports, unlike the US. Several nations were interested in purchasing the F-22, but the US decided not to allow it for export at all. In fact, that's the reason why APA is so butthurt about it; we didn't sell it to them. Japan was also interested, but is now working on their own fifth gen since the F-22 is off the table. There were even suggestions that they be sold to Israel.

It also says that like the US, Europe intends to deliver all of the aircraft it planned to make. In fact, the US made more aircraft than planned; the Pentagon planned for 183 but Congress funded 187. Yes, final production numbers were sharply reduced from original estimates, but this is also true of the Typhoon and Typhoon purchases would have been further slashed had it not been for contract clauses designed to ensure partners couldn't back out and leave the remaining nations footing the bill (which obviously isn't a problem for the US).

The British went from an initial order of 250 to a planned 160, and even considered going to 123 had it not been for penalty clauses. Germany would have slashed its purchases by more than the eventual 250 to 143 had it not been for the penalty clause requiring it to give up a share of the work (and thus the jobs), which were allocated based on purchases. They literally bought 40 more aircraft just to maintain their share of the workload and contracts. Italy slashed from 165 to 96, and Spain from 100 to 87.

[Premislyd]

I, for one, am now using modified Drakens for ground attack.

The Danes had a p neato ground attack/strike draken model

[San-Silvacian]

Given that it's main problem was that it cost a lot and making it better was only going to cost more and more and take more and more time...

You are making it sound like it had a major design error, knock it off.

poor chinese and russian economies can't handle 5th gen fighters that well.

Thats why the US and Russian programs started at around the same time (1980s) and the US has had four stealth aircraft in service and the Russians have had a massive none.

[San-Silvacian]

I, for one, am now using modified Drakens for ground attack.

The Danes had a p neato ground attack/strike draken model

Speaking of your planes how many do you want Prem.

Also what weapons and other shit (i.e. paint, markings, etc) do you want.

[Premislyd]

The Danes had a p neato ground attack/strike draken model

Speaking of your planes how many do you want Prem.

Also what weapons and other shit (i.e. paint, markings, etc) do you want.

idk, probably like ~75 or 80

i can do my own markings and stuff if it's easier

[San-Silvacian]

Speaking of your planes how many do you want Prem.

Also what weapons and other shit (i.e. paint, markings, etc) do you want.

idk, probably like ~75 or 80

i can do my own markings and stuff if it's easier

k

[New Vihenia]

You think the F-22 was cancelled for it's problems? Stay away from Aus Airpower and RT, really dude.

If i were a fan of F-22 I will actually get close to APA.

[Triplebaconation]

I, for one, am now using modified Drakens for ground attack.

The Danes had a p neato ground attack/strike draken model

Sophisticated 50s design means 2-5 times more maintenance than money hole F-22.

[Sintroa]

does this qualify as a mech? If not then this is mine, you can all keep your stone-age weaponry.