What are the odds that the F-22 gets put back into production? Has the F-35 totally replaced it?

an/apg 81 is more than a decade newer and developed from an/apg 77, it has all the air to air modes of 77 plus extra air to ground and electronic attack modes.

It's also run by a far more modern and more powerful computer.

So please explain how you're not getting BTFO right now.

Japan will be making its own F-22 with YF-23 engineers

I finally saw it acknowledged in a thread yesterday but most of you people still don't get that the F-35 is designed to act as part of a group, like a UAV commander. It has it's own drones that relay information back to it, act as missile defense, confuse enemy radar and increase the effectiveness of it's own weapon systems. That's why the F-35 cost so much to develop. That's why the delays and that's why it isn't really comparable to anything else out there right now.

The fact that in addition to this it's a pretty good plane on it's own is amazing.

youtube.com/watch?v=93NdwZAeXhI

I'm sure datalinks made quite a few people understand that, but then you have Spreytards that still think that air-to-air combat is decided by gun-based dogfights.

so are they going to build all the flaws that caused the yf-23 to lose in? most of those guys gotta be in their late 50's to mid 60's

1: No
2: No

never obam and gates had all the tooling broken up to prevent any push for more production. however the 2030 fighter program is close enough time wise same as the f/a-xx

>never obam and gates had all the tooling broken up to prevent any push for more production
wat?

F-35 is not a replacement but a compliment to the F-22. While the F-35 has a more sophisticated sensor suite, it also lacks some of the kinematics of the F-22 and its dedicated A2A payload. It's just like the F-15 and F-16 are complementary fighters.

Obama had Bill Gates drive him to the Grumman warehouse where they Obama smashed up the tools used to make the planes.

youtube.com/watch?v=iADmTE96osc

The current aiframes will probably be milked of every flight hours possible, with most likely a MLU along the way. Then the whatever is replacing it will take charge.

We don't really need them. They were meant for low level conflicts that the public could be exposed to. If we ever had a near-peer conflict that actually threatened our sovereignty, we would use our electro-gravitic propulsion interceptors, nuclear fueled hypersonic nuclear bomber drones, and satellite based weaponry.

F-23 is being made by Japan. If the US wants more 5th Gen dogfighters, it's looks like it's going to be that.
The F-35 isn't even in the same weight class, and doesn't perform the same role anyway.

You can also, you know, replace all those computers and the digital radar components in the F-22

>You can also, you know, replace all those computers and the digital radar components in the F-22

Which hasn't been done.

F-22 is an A2A fighter, it sucks at anything else. the F-35 is superior in every role except A2A

>The F-35 isn't even in the same weight class, and doesn't perform the same role anyway.
THIS

but what if it was.

This is bait.

I want to snug Britty Kitty so god damn bad.

Attached: EF0FE2A8-790D-41A2-A30F-68CE0179A79A.jpg (700x440, 44K)

>stealthier

There is no way for you to know this, but most experts have concluded that they are about the same in this regard. The F35 could be slightly better as well.

>faster

Yes, this is true.

>more maneuverable

In certain aspects, but this isn't really relevant for air combat anymore.

>and has better radar

No

The F35 also has much better sensors and avionics, which is far more important than any supposed advantage the F22 may have.

>but this isn't really relevant for air combat anymore.
For defending against ground launches it is though.

then any discussion is irrelevant because you can just move the goalposts.

We're talking about the real world.

Then it would no longer be the AN/APG 77 would it, retard

The Japponese have been offered a "hybrid" of the F-22 and F-35, though what that will actually be remains to be seen, as does the actual choice the JASDF will make for their next-gen fighter.

Not really no. If a modern SAM locks on to you, you're almost certainly fucked either way. The much safer approach is to not rely on maneuvering to avoid missiles, but using stealth and sensors to detect launching platforms first and either avoid or destroy them. This is kind of like A10fags going on about how muh armor makes it perfect for CAS missions when the better solution is to just fly at a higher altitude.

>In certain aspects, but this isn't really relevant for air combat anymore.
...yes it is.

What a cute little plen.

Not really, no. I mean obviously something with a super wider turning radius wouldn't be ideal for various other reasons, but dogfights have been steadily dying out over the decades and this will only become more pronounced in the future. Maneuverability isn't a first or even second order concern anymore.

>If a modern SAM locks on to you, you're almost certainly fucked either way.
I'd disagree. It depends entirely on your plane, position, countermeasures, jamming the radars available to the enemy and so forth. Obviously it's more difficult, but I've not read anything to suggest it's become impossible. Especially so with modern stealth aircraft with jamming capabilities.
>The much safer approach is to not rely on maneuvering to avoid missiles, but using stealth and sensors to detect launching platforms first and either avoid or destroy them.
And that's not always a choice, especially so with manpads, which have shown themselves to be highly relevant when planes fly NOE to avoid the meaner, bigger systems.
>This is kind of like A10fags going on about how muh armor makes it perfect for CAS missions when the better solution is to just fly at a higher altitude.
And it's also why the A-10 is a flying coffin on a modern battlefield. It's slow and unmaneuverable. Gets grounded soon as the enemy shows AA capabilities and is replaced by F-16s that perform its role much better and safer. It's going to spend more time in the danger zone and it doesn't have the speed or maneuverability to escape or avoid.

Maneuverability is a significant factor in BVR.

We Finns would want the F-22 as our primary quite honestly.
We don't want a F-35 cum bat. It's not enough for us.

Oh yeah. Each change in heading is going to force the missile to maneuver and burn more fuel and in the final approach being able to maneuver is the difference between life and death.

Definitely. Kind of a shitty situation for the fighter purchase 2020. Only stealth is F-35, a strike fighter and Swedeplane's not necessarily going to be valid in the future.

Japan is already starting production on the Mitsubishi X-2 though

Attached: X-2_First_Flight.jpg (1000x562, 363K)

>Kind of a shitty situation
If there are two nations today the USA really wants they are Sweden and Finland.

Then quickly build a F-22 replacement and sell it to Finland. All ground attack they need are JASSMs.

Who. Gives. A. SHIT.

>I'd disagree. It depends entirely on your plane, position, countermeasures, jamming the radars available to the enemy and so forth. Obviously it's more difficult, but I've not read anything to suggest it's become impossible. Especially so with modern stealth aircraft with jamming capabilities.

Yes, but I'm talking about maneuverability alone. For that to be useful in defeating a missile launch, you would have already needed to be tracked, locked on to, and a missile sent at you. I agree that speed, stealth, jamming, etc. are all perfectly valid ways to avoid getting a missile getting shot at you, but maneuvering to avoid a missile as a last resort is almost always a futile effort. A jet with a human in it simply cannot be as maneuverable as a missile, which can perform ridiculously high-g turns that would turn a human to goo. Yes I know it's been done by pre-stealth fighters against SA-2's or whatever, but even then it's incredibly dangerous for them.

>And that's not always a choice, especially so with manpads, which have shown themselves to be highly relevant when planes fly NOE to avoid the meaner, bigger systems.

We're talking about jet fighter aircraft here. MANPADs are borderline useless against them unless someone sneaks one up to the end of the runway and takes a shot on takeoff.

>We're talking about jet fighter aircraft here. MANPADs are borderline useless against them unless someone sneaks one up to the end of the runway and takes a shot on takeoff.
Modern ones aren't and if the planes are flying NOE, they are very much vulnerable.

License it to Finland.
>we are a nation of 5.5 million
>we are a true nuke nation
>no one talks about nukes though
>we license build our fighters

Name me another nation with 5 million people who builds their own shit at this level.

North Korea?

heh.

Jokes aside, Norks have much more, and that's it.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-07-15 23-36-40.png (1868x924, 259K)

You don't really though. It's just final assembly, all the components are made in the US and sent over, you just insert the engines, add the wings and then do some wiring.

License built implies you have the right to build someone else's work

>The tooling is gone
Wrong, it's actually in a secure facility protected by Uncle Sam.

The Japanese are actually willing to pay for the costs of restarting F22 production, the only thing stopping them is classified US tech.

>almost always a futile effort

Missiles have a very limited delta-v and are at the mercy of the maneuvering target. A maneuvering aircraft has a much higher delta-v potential and can bait the missile to lower altitudes and denser air making it's already limited delta-v ineffective. not to mention long range SAMs like S-300 and the like are still SARH, and can be notched or terrain masked more easily. That's not to say that you can't also notch or terrain mask an active radar seeker. The point is, the missile will always be at a kinematic disadvantage, and this is why SEAD/DEAD will always be more effective than SAM networks.

Attached: Growler SEAD.jpg (4256x2832, 769K)

>you have the right
You hand over the right. Come on.

but you're not actually building anyone intellectual property, you're just putting the last few pieces together.

Not trying to bash Finland but it's not exactly the same as India, China, Australia etc buying a design and making most of the components themselves before final assembly.

>Missiles have a very limited delta-v
Not anymore, the IRIS can outmanoeuvre any target.

I know it's already been stated ITT, but literally the F-22 and the F-35 have completely different roles... They are not replacing the one with the other, both will be in service for 30 more years.

>What are the odds that the F-22 gets put back into production?

0% until a rival nation comes out with a dedicated A2A fighter that's good enough to justify the expense of not just producing new ones, but also upgrading them.

>short range A2A
Well that doesn't matter

IPR is an interesting thing in defense World.

You have to be a truly trusted ally in all of such cases.

>We're talking about the real world.

What if you could upgrade computers in the real world

It's a tech demonstrator now

F-3 will apparently be F-22 like. After all, Japan is already getting F-35s, so they need F-15 successor now, to complement it.

>The Japanese are actually willing to pay for the costs of restarting F22 production
>this kills the chinaman

Attached: DBoPc-uWAAEGF_g.jpg (1200x801, 134K)

> what is the AN/APG-77(v1)?

>What are the odds that the F-22 gets put back into production?
Production line was disassembled without any chances to restore it. They can't build a new F-22 even if they want it.

>equates maneuverability with energy available

Gtfo

pic related

Attached: 1523673631442.png (1069x834, 857K)

That, and they've actually lost the people, parts, plans and machinery to make the thing. Its not just a case of opening a new factory, they would have to actually reverse engineer the whole plane to figure out how to build it again.

>1523673631442.png
>*cough cough*
It is the pilot coughing from the shitty chinese turbine leaking fumes to the cockpit, right?

No, that's an F22.

Use it as a rebuttal when debating 50 centers

Which makes you wonder why Israel isn't getting the f35

The USA will have 5th gen fighter superiority through the current F-22 and planned F-35 numbers for long enough to complete a next generation air superiority fighter building upon the technologies matured for the F-35 program.

Israel already has F-35. They were even the first to use it in combat.

天安门广场

1989年大屠杀

1989年天安门

他妈的毛

They got the monkey model

Actually complete opposite.

They are the only country with ability to write their own software for it.

"*Shrug*" monkey code all the same

>uses a solid fuel rocket motor
>this can compare to the delta-v of a fighter with +10k lbs of fuel and an actual wing

Do you even know what delta-v is?

Attached: 1437523271499.gif (500x418, 957K)

>Implying the F-16 isn’t currently on the chopping block

The Air Force said the same shit back in the early 90’s and tried to give an F-16 A-10 CAS capability. I mean to be completely honest we aren’t gonna be fighting enemies that have the latest and greatest AA as it would be bad for business of both countries.

delta-v and endurance are not the same thing

A rocket is capable of changing its heading much better than any plane is

...yet

Both have a finite delta-v (dV), but the missile's dV is always going to be much smaller compared to the aircraft. It becomes an endurance problem because of the limited dV. Say your missile has a total dV of 1000 N*s and needs to track a target with a total of 100K N*s dV. I'm sure you can see the problem already. You need to fire your missile close enough that your target can't utilize it's larger dV, but when you're firing from the ground you're already losing a ton of dV due to drag and gravity.

>A rocket is capable of changing its heading much better than any plane is
You're missing the point here, if you pull some crazy 60g maneuver to continue tracking you've expended a sizable chunk of your dV thus further reducing your effective range/endurance. even though the aircraft can't pull 60g it can bait the missile to change it's course repeatedly and bleed its dV. The only time the missile has a chance is when air launched at that magic range where the aircraft does not have enough time to produce the dV required to bleed the missile dry.

>N*s
I don't know why i used units for impulse, i meant to use m/s

>What are the odds that the F-22 gets put back into production?
Zero, it was devised towards the tail end of the cold war when the notion that a stealth fighter/interceptor that could dogfight was considered a need that had to be filled. Now, that dogfighting is basically a thing of the past, the need for such a craft is greatly reduced.

>Has the F-35 totally replaced it?
Pretty much, with the exception of Air superiority and interception. The F-35 was designed to fill the roles that the F-22 could do, but not nearly as well as the F-35 or F-18.

People over complicate this. A missile has a maximum range, but also a gaurentee kill envelop which is much shorter. A missile’s ability stay on target is how much fuel it can expend to follow the target successfully. A missile that’s out of fuel can still glide in, but it can’t do big sharp maneuvers.

Thd ATD-X was never going to be a production fighter, it was always a testbed for shit that might go into the F-3. Now that the F-3 is on the backburner, who knows what the Japs are gonna replace their F-15's with.

Have legacy F15s been completely phased out yet? When will F15Es been replaced?

No, both will be around for a while.