F-105 vs F-35 JSF

[+streakeagle 871]

I don't know if someone has posted this link before, but it sure is slick 

The F-35 should have been everything the F-16 evolved into, but with stealth:

Small, agile, relatively cheap, very capable at both air-to-air and air-to-ground.

But stealth inflates everything: size, weight, cost, and in this case deflates performance to F-4 Phantom levels.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-Thud-2004.html

 

 

Edited November 20, 2013 by streakeagle

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

That comparison is a joke. F-105 is a Model T compared to the F-35. Haters be hatin.

[warthog64 92]

I would say a more realistic comparison would be that an F-35 with external combat loads and therefore not that stealthy is equal to the F-16 with no real advantages.

 

Regardless, the flight performance of an F-35 is much better than an F-105 or F-4, that comparison is nuts! The F-35 is more maneuverable, has faster acceleration, has a tighter turning radius, etc. The F-22 is a much better pure fighter than an F-35 though of course.

 

That website seems to have a lot of asinine articles about the capabilities of modern U.S. aircraft. It even claims the 30 year old Su-27 is still the best fighter in the world, so I wouldn't give them much credibility.

Edited November 20, 2013 by warthog64

[Stipe 56]

I That website seems to have a lot of asinine articles about the capabilities of modern U.S. aircraft. It even claims the 30 year old Su-27 is still the best fighter in the world, so I wouldn't give them much credibility.

If you think about it the Su-27 is a better fighter than the F-22. Pit them against each other with only bullets, who do you think will win ... my guess is the Sukhoi...

Edited November 20, 2013 by Stipe

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

You sir are stirring poop. That has nothing to do with a rather weird and possibly alcohol fueled comparison of the F-105 to the JSF. The fact is the F-35 is NOT the cheap disposable fighter that the F-16A was. It is actually the product of what the F-16 later became. Just because there are some rough size similarities between the two doesn't mean anything. Whatever.

Edited November 20, 2013 by CrazyhorseB34

[MAKO69 186]

That comparison is a joke. F-105 is a Model T compared to the F-35. Haters be hatin.

Roger that CH. I've had similar discussions with other aircraft from the past compared to current gen 4/5 fighters strike aircraft. The planes may share similar numbers on a board, but in reality the difference between an F-105 and an F-35 is one is like throwing a bullet, and the other shooting a high powered rifle.

 

As for the SU-27 and the F-22 close in dogfight It would come down to the skill of the Jake on the stick in a furball between those planes. The F-22 can sustain it self longer in a tight thrust vectored turn, the SU-27 will eventually fall out. As for the "COBRA Maneuver" which for the lack of a better term is gay, and has no use in a real dog fight, It's just a crowd pleaser. the reason for vectored thrust is to turn the aircraft in an unconventional axis at speed. I say let the SU 27 and the rest of the Sukhois  flop around the sky at a near stalling speed, the pilot will eventually screw up. Now going back to the reason why the F-22/F-35 are stealthy is so that kind of fight doesn't happen. War is hell and the modern armies and air arms need to cheat, war is not fair and it shouldn't be. Stealth is what makes these planes apex predators. The key term on and above the "Modern" Battlefield from the soldier holding the line to the plane in the sky supporting them, and all the other war machines in the middle, is "Stealth". That my friends will always be a winner in any book.

[MigBuster 2,884]

I don't know if someone has posted this link before, but it sure is slick 

The F-35 should have been everything the F-16 evolved into, but with stealth:

Small, agile, relatively cheap, very capable at both air-to-air and air-to-ground.

But stealth inflates everything: size, weight, cost, and in this case deflates performance to F-4 Phantom levels.

 

 

 

 

Shocked Streak - would expect a total newbie to read that article and take it serious............

 

There is no real comparison v an F-105 - or an F-4 (Any variant) 

 

The one above is akin to:

 

F-4B Operates off a carrier

F-35C Operates off a carrier

 

Therefore F-4B = F-35C

Edited November 20, 2013 by MigBuster

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Fokker Dr 1 has wings, B-2 Spirit has wings so.... Fokker Dr 1 = B-2 Spirit. I get it now. Quite a clever assessment.

[arthur666 65]

If you think about it the Su-27 is a better fighter than the F-22. Pit them against each other with only bullets, who do you think will win ... my guess is the Sukhoi...

 

Who knows?  But it would be a very lucky Flanker pilot who would ever get close enough to try out his gun on a F-22.  Not having the most maneuverable dogfighter was a liability in the late 60's (although one that was overcome with tactics).   But back then, AtoA missiles were of limited use.  The latest AMRAAM is insanely deadly and versatile.  AMRAAMs + AWACS + stealth + supersonic cruising speed = ?

[+Stary 2,427]

I'd take Thud any time over that plastic fancy tounchscreen toy

 

at least in a photorealistic high fidelity flight simulation that is

 

those who know me now I'm not a fan of F-35 (or Raptor for the matter) nice chart though

[Fubar512 1,350]

I found this during a Google search"

 

LM defends F-35 JSF agility against critics
By: Chris Pocock

June 15, 2009
Aircraft 


Is Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter a “bomb truck,” optimized for the stealthy attack of ground targets but of limited value as a defender of airspace? Critics and rivals of the multibillion-dollar international program have been sniping at the F-35’s air-to-air maneuvering performance for years. But the issue came to a head last August, when a presentation from The Rand Corporation stated that the F-35A “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” 

Coming from a respected think tank that is funded by the U.S. government, the claim provoked a heated response from the Pentagon. “The F-35 enjoys a significant combat loss exchange ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats,” said U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, the F-35 program executive officer. Rand subsequently backtracked on the presentation, but the issue was still reverberating ahead of the Paris Air Show when AIN sought comment from Lockheed Martin F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley. 

“I’m not sure I believe some of the Rand figures. They are influenced by the lightweight fighter mafia,” he commented. That’s a reference to a school of opinion that championed the original F-16 concept, and chafed at its subsequent development into a much heavier, multirole combat aircraft. Twenty-five years later, the “mafia” still apparently haunts the halls at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas facility. 

But Rand authors John Stillion and Scott Purdue contended that the high wing loading of the F-35 makes it inherently less agile than current fighter aircraft, including Russia’s MiGs and Sukhois, and Europe’s Rafale and Typhoon. Moreover, the F-35’s thrust loading is significantly inferior to that of the F-15, F-16 and F-22, they said. As a result, Rand alleged, the F-35 is inferior in visual-range combat in terms of acceleration, climb and sustained-turn capability. It also has a lower top speed, they added.

Beesley called these comparisons naïve and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. “Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1.” Moreover, he noted, the F-35’s half-fuel load is greater than today’s fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds. 

Beesley also insisted that the sustained turn rate of the F-35 is conquerable, despite its higher wing loading. He insisted that there is “a huge amount of thrust available” from the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft. 

The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-18 or the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.” 

Moreover, Beesley told AIN, the debate should not be limited to a discussion of visual-range dogfighting. “In a real combat mission, the ability to sneak up on your opponent and be the first to shoot is paramount,” he said. 

This is a reference to stealth, of course, and the F-35’s low observability cannot be matched by any of the fighters that were mentioned in the Rand analysis. Opposing fighter pilots will find that the range at which they can detect the F-35, either by radar or electro-optics/infrared means, will be much shorter than they are used to. 
But Beesley also had another “non-kinetic” characteristic in mind–the F-35’s mission avionics, claimed to be the most advanced in the world. “The F-35 pilot will have superior situational awareness, by day and by night, and a helmet-mounted display. This will be a great advantage and will allow him to take full advantage of the performance of today’s off-boresight air-to-air missiles,” he said.

Beesley can speak from some experience in the debate. He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80.

 

Putting my 2 cents into it, comparing the F-105 to an F-35 is akin to comparing a 1967 Corvette to 2014 Corvette, on the basis that they share about the same footprint, weigh about the same, and are both equipped with 427 cubic inch engines.  Which one do you think would win a drag race, or turn the fastest lap on a road course?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Fubar512

[Stipe 56]

Who knows?  But it would be a very lucky Flanker pilot who would ever get close enough to try out his gun on a F-22.  Not having the most maneuverable dogfighter was a liability in the late 60's (although one that was overcome with tactics).   But back then, AtoA missiles were of limited use.  The latest AMRAAM is insanely deadly and versatile.  AMRAAMs + AWACS + stealth + supersonic cruising speed = ?

My comparation was F-22A vs Su-37, only guns. I think that the thrust vectoring Flanker would win with ease...

Edited November 20, 2013 by Stipe

[MigBuster 2,884]

My comparation was F-22A vs Su-37, only guns. I think that the thrust vectoring Flanker would win with ease...

 

AFAIK the Su-37 remains a tech demonstrator was never brought into service............

I

Beesley called these comparisons naïve and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. “Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1.” Moreover, he noted, the F-35’s half-fuel load is greater than today’s fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds. 

 

 

 

Spot on - that RAND report is another joke you should see some of the figures and it even claims the F-105 has a lower wing loading figure!

[MigBuster 2,884]

 Which one do you think would win a drag race, or turn the fastest lap on a road course?

 

Actually I would bet the F-105 would probably win a low level drag race on top speed even with a loadout :) - but then again it was designed to go fast and low for survivability.

 

 

Combat has changed so much and for todays world the F-35 wins on everything else - especially the far more important aspect of SA and survivability in a modern threat environment.

[JediMaster 451]

It seems like even the "experts" are completely missing that it was called the "Joint Strike Fighter." Not Joint Dogfighter. Not Joint Air Superiority Fighter. Strike.

 

That is the primary mission. It's not supposed to get in turning battles. It's not supposed to fly at Mach 2+. It was designed to do something that precluded it being able to do EVERYTHING for a decent budget. The budget overruns are indeed ridiculous, but the price doesn't imply it's supposed to be 90% of the F-22 for 90% of the price. It was supposed to be more like 75% for 50% of the price. The fact that it's grown to 90% price while still being just 75% doesn't mean it's horribly deficient.

 

If Apple sold iPads for $3000, they'd have far fewer users. They'd be just as capable, but overpriced and criticized for it. They do what they were designed to do, but that job isn't worth $3000.

 

If the F-35s were costing what they were SUPPOSED to cost, the criticisms would have far less teeth. Just because we're paying Ferrari prices doesn't mean it's a Ferrari that is sub-par, it's just a Lexus at a Ferrari price.

[Sheriff001 397]

My comparation was F-22A vs Su-37, only guns. I think that the thrust vectoring Flanker would win with ease...

 

The comparison is absurd. Why would either party limit itself to guns, and how is this Su-37 going to find the F-22?

[Stipe 56]

The comparison is absurd. Why would either party limit itself to guns, and how is this Su-37 going to find the F-22?

I limited the combarison to guns so that the "plane wins the battle" not Aim-120s and R-77s and this is assuming that the F-22 has been found...

[Sheriff001 397]

 

I limited the combarison to guns so that the "plane wins the battle" not Aim-120s and R-77s and this is assuming that the F-22 has been found.

 

You can't rig comparisons in this manner, and expect that the results will be taken seriously. Obviously, making the assumption that the F-22 will found before it brings a weapon to bear and fires takes this out of the real world and into the realms of fantasy. Plane to plane, mano a mano hasn't been the case since World War I.

[Stipe 56]

You can't rig comparisons in this manner, and expect that the results will be taken seriously. Obviously, making the assumption that the F-22 will found before it brings a weapon to bear and fires takes this out of the real world and into the realms of fantasy. Plane to plane, mano a mano hasn't been the case since World War I.

You are taking it that seriously ... I'm making the comparison based only by the planes dogfighting capability (only guns) ... now put that into context and the 22 wil monster it (by that I meen in operations...with stealth,AESE,Missiles etc.), but them mano a mano and you have a real dogfight on you hands. In witch the Su-37/35 has a little advantage (puting aside the assumption that Americans are better trained then Russians).

Edited November 20, 2013 by Stipe

[MAKO69 186]

Oh this is good can't wait till I put the kids to bed and read all these awesome posts!

[Sheriff001 397]

 

You are taking it that seriously ... I'm making the comparison based only by the planes dogfighting capability (only guns) ... now put that into context and the 22 wil monster it (by that I meen in operations...with stealth,AESE,Missiles etc.), but them mano a mano and you have a real dogfight on you hands. In witch the Su-37/35 has a little advantage (puting aside the assumption that Americans are better trained then Russians).

 

The short version of that is "In the Real World, the F-22 will win". Even if one was confined to guns only, the one who sees the other first will pretty much always win. You cannot reasonably posit a situation in which the Su-37 sees the F-22 first, even on RWR. Little is known of the Su-37's dogfighting capability, the performances at airshows are just that ... performances.

 

I see little point in a comparison between a Russian and US fighter when you deprive both of missiles, and you deprive the US fighter of AEW support, and you have both aircraft becoming aware of each other simultaneously. It is as plausible as putting asking how they'd fight underwater.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

F-105 can't out run an AIM-120C......

 

Stipe this thing started as a flawed comparison between the F-105 and the F-35. Now it has evolved into your twisted notion that the F-22 will be defeated every time by a technology demonstrator.

 

In case you didn't know, the F-22 has vectored thrust also.

[Stipe 56]

F-105 can't out run an AIM-120C......

 

Stipe this thing started as a flawed comparison between the F-105 and the F-35. Now it has evolved into your twisted notion that the F-22 will be defeated every time by a technology demonstrator.

 

In case you didn't know, the F-22 has vectored thrust also.

1. You should ask your self, witch is better value for money: the 60 million $ Sukhoi Su-35 , or practically the second most expensive airplane ever (behind the B-2)?

 

2. The Su-35 can fly as far that his pilot will alow (+Refueling), the 22 experiencea 1 mejor fault every hour...

 

3. It will not be defeated every time, I'm just pointing out that the 22 isn't invincible, and that you should stop acting like it is...

 

4. I have read recently that the thrust vector on the 22 is the most irelevant component in a dogfight (found out at Red Flag 2013. against some Gripens...)

Edited November 21, 2013 by Stipe

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Su-37 does not exist in reality. So of the aircraft actually fielded by nations who happen to inhabit the Earth, at this moment nothing can match the F-22.

[Sheriff001 397]

 

1. You should ask your self, witch is better value for money: the 60 million $ Sukhoi Su-35 , or practically the second most expensive airplane ever (behind the B-2)?

 

A $60 million Su-35 hurtling to the ground in several hundred pieces is money wasted, particularly if the pilot's first indication of a trouble was his aircraft exploding. The $200 million F-22 that destroyed it sounds like better value.

 

 

2. The Su-35 can fly as far that his pilot will alow (+Refueling), the 22 experiencea 1 mejor fault every hour...

 

Although I haven't seen it myself, I think Lockheed manage have correctly spelled displays. Rather than engaging in sophistry or being disingenuous, let us consider facts. The figure you're quoting relates to Mean Time Between Maintenance, not Mean Time Between Failure. The F-22's average MBTM is 1.7 hours. The F-16C's is 1.8. The Indian Air Force has reported that it is having problems with contractor support, and spare parts. The catch in "cheaper" Russian weapons is that the warranty may as well be toilet paper. Saturn's response to Indian reports of shaft bearing failures was to tell the IAF to change their lubricant ... the shaft bearing failures continued.

 

 

3. It will not be defeated every time, I'm just pointing out that the 22 isn't invincible, and that you should stop acting like it is.

 

No, you weren't pointing that out at all. You were saying that the Su-35 would defeat the F-22 in a fight in which the F-22's advantages are defined out of existence.

 

 

4. I have read recently that the thrust vector on the 22 is the most irelevant component in a dogfight (found out at Red Flag 2013. against some Gripens...)

 

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to expound on this Red Flag combat, then please do.