F-105 vs F-35 JSF

[+daddyairplanes 9,892]

on the Su-any brand.... any nation that can afford them these days likely has something to lose and is not likely to get involved in a shooting war with the US. the Soviet Union gave planes away. Russia does not, you have to pay hard cash for em. also note i said not likely, did not say wont ever happen. 

 

on the Raptor.... if allowed to fight in its medium it will obliterate the opposition not in a dogfight but long before the other guy visually see the Raptor or even likely knows he's there. HOWEVER.... we have built so few of them that my worry is not how good is the other guys planes. my worry is what if the other guys sends 60 Mig-21 and even say Mig-15 up against 8 Raptors? 8 missiles per, figure a realistic 90% kil rate on fired missiles that means there are 2 survivors. thats when the OPFOR sends up their Mig29 or Su-27 variants.  Yes if allowed to fight in its element and fashion the Raptor will dominate. but it is very beatable just not in the way you guys have been discussing.

[Stipe 56]

The fact is that the US tresures them so much that the won't ever see the enemy. As for the maintinance, the F-22 is practicly the most expencive warplane to keep in the sky...

 

This some kind of chart I made up of maintenace costs:

 

1. F-22

2. F-35

3. J-20

4. T-50

5. J-31

[MigBuster 2,879]

If I was in an F-16 v either an F-22 or Su-35 (1v1) in guzzo only and I saw either were doing a lot of TVing then my chance of winning would shoot up to about 95% I reakon................

 

Yes in real life the F-22 is authorized to do 1 v 1 WVR combat only against close air forces like the French AF (it would appear) 

 

The F-35 might not miss that stuff  - its advertised capability allows it to lock and fire at targets that are behind it even - forcing anything to go defensive.

 

Right so whats the F-105 version of EODAS? - suppose that was the rear view mirrors 

[MAKO69 186]

The F-105 was a great bomb truck and definitely not stealthy, hence more than half were lost over the skies in Vietnam either from AAA or SAMs. Enjoy it for what it is and was. A great war bird.

[Sheriff001 397]

The fact is that the US tresures them so much that the won't ever see the enemy. As for the maintinance, the F-22 is practicly the most expencive warplane to keep in the sky...

 

That's more of an opinion than a fact.

 

My opinion, which I think is better founded that yours, is that the chances of a suitable enemy for the F-22 appearing are very slim. Almost non-existent.

 

 

This some kind of chart I made up of maintenace costs:

 

1. F-22

2. F-35

3. J-20

4. T-50

5. J-31

 

I'd prefer facts to things you "made up".

 

Re: Daddyairplanes' worry: I'm not so worried. It would seem to me to be a highly perverse country that sends in its Second Grade team first, and holds back the First Grade team. I don't see the F-22 getting into a turning fight with a subsonic aircraft like a MiG-15 or -17 for the same reason an F-15 wouldn't. You'd be playing your disadvantages against their advantages. It is the business of the pilot, and his commanders to pit their own advantages against the enemy's disadvantages. That is a philosophy as old as war itself.

[Stipe 56]

My opinion, which I think is better founded that yours, is that the chances of a suitable enemy for the F-22 appearing are very slim. Almost non-existent.

The fact is that Russia and China are going for the same tactics as always, quantity over quality and the West, same as always, quality over quantity. That is reflected in the price, 200+ mil. $ for the F-22, and about a 80-100 mil. $ for the F-35,whereas the T-50 is 50-70 mil. $ and the J-20 is 70-80 mil. $

[Caesar 305]

You guys got it all wrong, the apex fighter of the future is the Avenger.  With twin-elerium engines it can go from about 0 to 25M within a few seconds in atmosphere!  No fighter can match that acceleration, and it can decelerate just as quickly, with enough finesse (thanks to its advanced, possibly other-worldly navigation and computer systems) to touch down next to a splashed bandit and drop no less than 26, count 'em 26 ground troops for the assault and recovery of the splashed asset.  With acceleration characteristics that good, the ability to perform sustained space flight and acceleration in the vertical, no other plane, aircraft or spacecraft, can match it.  Armed with twin plasma beams, it would make short work of any SeXplan3 - Sukhoi, Boeing, MiG, Grumman, or otherwise, with no problem.  Chasing down its opponent is no issue, and with the ability to make near instantaneous turns upon slowing, no COBRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! or J-Turn maneuver will help the situation for the plane being targeted.

 

In fact, I don't know why we don't just put all our funding into those?  They do take a lot of alloys to create, admittedly...

 

:3

[Stipe 56]

I think we will stick with aircraft that are NOW flying and not some kind of SF-monstrosity...maybe in 2100-2200...

[Caesar 305]

Wrong series.  (X-COM was the answer we were looking for.)

 

[Sheriff001 397]

The fact is that Russia and China are going for the same tactics as always, quantity over quality and the West, same as always, quality over quantity. That is reflected in the price, 200+ mil. $ for the F-22, and about a 80-100 mil. $ for the F-35,whereas the T-50 is 50-70 mil. $ and the J-20 is 70-80 mil. $

 

Very trite. We all know this. Could you please explain how this makes any difference beyond what we all already know?

How could you possibly know the fly-away price of a T50?

[+SupGen 78]

  Ahh, Jesus Chri... Did any of you guys actually read the article? I've had some serious disagreements with Perfesser Kopp in the past, but not this time. At no time in this article does he attempt to say that the F-105 could substitute for the F-35; he merely points out that similar requirements resulted in aircraft of similar size and weight. He isn't really comparing the two aircraft but the way they fit into the same niche in their respective eras. He opines that the F-35s namesake P-38 Lightning was more like the F-22 Raptor of its day and that the F-35 was more analogeous to the P-39 and P-40; I'm pretty sure he didn't mean they could be substituted for the F-35 in the present day. Where he does miss is in his analysis of the Thuds' performance in Vietnam. He sounds like a bombing campaign like Rolling Thunder was what the F-105 was designed for. It was not. For one thing, check out the eighth picture down in the article. Almost every picture you see of Thuds in action in 'Nam shows the same thing; F-105s dropping bombs from high altitude. The F-105 wasn't just designed as a high speed, low level strike aircraft, it was designed as a high speed, low level NUCLEAR strike aircraft. It wasn't designed to be self-escorting; it wasn't intended to have any escort at all. It was intended, if the balloon went up in Europe, to carry a single, fairly high yield nuclear bomb into and beyond the interdiction zone (which is why its combat radius was so much higher than other USAF fighters of its day), and deliver it on a high value target. Period. It obviously never flew this mission profile in Vietnam.

  OK, nuff said on that. As far as the F-35, F-22, vs Su-27, Su-35, Su-37, Pak-Fa, whatever; I think the only answer is a weapons hot fly-off; Stipe, you get the Sukhoi; I'll ummm, I'll be in the Raptor.

Edited November 22, 2013 by SupGen

[Sheriff001 397]

I did read the article, and the point he makes is reasonable. Both aircraft are designed for the strike mission, they are similar in size and weight, and use the penetration mode du jour (F-105: low, fast; F-35: stealth). I'd suggest that the appropriate juxtaposition is F-105/F-106 to F-35/F-22.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

I read it. But did not agree with Streakeagle's assessment of it. I have been trying to prevent the "super Su" argument for days.

[Stipe 56]

How could you possibly know the fly-away price of a T50?

I read it in a Croatian aircraft magazine.

[Sheriff001 397]

 

I read it in a Croatian aircraft magazine.

 

[Stipe 56]

It might not be accurate but in any case its cheaper than your american b*******

 

[Sheriff001 397]

You're talking nonsense. A few posts ago, you told me that what the price of the T-50 would be, now you're giving me vague estimates. The fact is that neither you, nor anyone else know what the price will be, or if anyone will be prepared to pay it. We read exactly the same rubbish about the Su-37 back in the nineties.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Caveat emptor. All you have to say about nations relying on Russia for top of the line jet fighters. Look at the Indian engine situation and the Algerian MiG-29SMT debacle. Like I stressed in the Indian refurbed crap Russian CV thread, when you buy Russian jets you buy crap. Now please let's steer this back to the F-105 is just as good as F-35 argument so I can get hours of belly laughs.

[Stipe 56]

Haha...If the F-105 is just as good as the F-35, then the F-22 is the same as the F-4 and the Fletcher-class = Zumwalt-class...

[Sheriff001 397]

Again - that isn't what Kopp was writing. This isn't difficult to work out if you read it (Stipe, I suspect that you simply looked at the graphic on the first post of this thread). As has been said earlier, Kopp wrote that the F35 and F-105 are equivalents for their respective time periods. Each is similar in size, weight, performance, and general mission. Each uses the preferred method for penetrating enemy defences for their time, with the F-105 using high speed and low altitude while the F-35 uses stealth. To this extent, Kopp is absolutely right, the F-35 and F-105 are single-engined strike fighters intended to penetrate enemy defences to hit valuable targets.

 

Kopp further postulates that, in combat, the F-35 will have similar results to the F-105 over North Vietnam. An overall examination of Kopp's writings reveal that he is a great believer in the ability of ground-based IADS to defeat air power, at least with contemporary aircraft. The fact that the North Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Serbian air defences couldn't stop the USAF and USN bombing whatever they wanted to bomb doesn't dissuade him. He does believe that there are two exceptions to this rule, the F-22 and the F-111C.

[+logan4 847]

I would be interested to find out what would have been the Iraq and Serbian results without the use of Tomahawks and other version of cruise missiles as first strike. 

Also not mean to hurt anyone's feelings but having a 5x or 10x the number of AC (Serbian war) would not result in a fair comparison of capability - beside describing the very tactics of example used few posts above against the Raptor. Using superior numbers in fact against an inferior AF is not a comparison of an equal or superior one.

 

On topic:

If mankind decides let say in the upcoming 10 years that war was a thing of the past to solve issues. Then these new toys (5th gen AC) could become a waste of money. Aside from the technological advances they bring in certain fields, they would have no netto return value under those circumstances.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

The Serbs had junk MiG-29 9.12B's with broken and unserviceable radar. They where no match for the NATO air forces. They essentially committed suicide. The first shots of ODS where AGM-114's fired by U.S. Army AH-64A, not Tomahawks. The first shots of OIF where F-117's raid on the Dora Farms district of Bahgdad, not Tomahawks. Bottom line is, if you want to win you must buy the good stuff and train motivated intelligent young men to use it. Both of those cases are examples of how that idea was not followed.

[MAKO69 186]

Again - that isn't what Kopp was writing. This isn't difficult to work out if you read it (Stipe, I suspect that you simply looked at the graphic on the first post of this thread). As has been said earlier, Kopp wrote that the F35 and F-105 are equivalents for their respective time periods. Each is similar in size, weight, performance, and general mission. Each uses the preferred method for penetrating enemy defences for their time, with the F-105 using high speed and low altitude while the F-35 uses stealth. To this extent, Kopp is absolutely right, the F-35 and F-105 are single-engined strike fighters intended to penetrate enemy defences to hit valuable targets.

 

Kopp further postulates that, in combat, the F-35 will have similar results to the F-105 over North Vietnam. An overall examination of Kopp's writings reveal that he is a great believer in the ability of ground-based IADS to defeat air power, at least with contemporary aircraft. The fact that the North Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Serbian air defences couldn't stop the USAF and USN bombing whatever they wanted to bomb doesn't dissuade him. He does believe that there are two exceptions to this rule, the F-22 and the F-111C.

Kopp's writings are ludicrous these two planes are apples and oranges. The F-35 will have a much larger chunk of responsibility on the battlefield then the F-105 ever did and do it better than it ever could. More than half of all F-105s ever made were lost in Vietnam to AAA and SAMS. His statement about the F-35 will have similar results to the F-105 over North Vietnam is wicked awesome, the reason why the United States developed stealth was because of the mass loss of hardware over the skies of Vietnam. As for his statement on F-111C those are either pulled apart for scrap or buried in a grave in Australia.

Crazyhorse and women.

 

 That's right, the Apaches did fire the 1st shots of the Iraq War.

[Sheriff001 397]

That is quite possibly right. The F-105 was never intended to be used as it was in fact used over North Vietnam, as a conventional strategic bomber operating in daylight, bombing from high level. If you're going to operate like that in an unstealthy aircraft, you may as well send the enemy missile crews embossed invitations to shoot you down. How the F-105 would have performed when used in its intended role, as a low level tactical nuclear strike aircraft is something we'll never know.

[+Gepard 10,982]

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.

 

I bet on the Fokker.