Jump to content


F35 vs F22 (price and functionality) question


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
34 replies to this topic

DarkElf #1 Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:43 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
Reading about both plane, something make me curious. What special ability F35 can offer that it's so expensive?

Going by wiki price, F22 cost $150 million, F35 cost $200-230 million, F16 cost $20 million, F/A18 cost $60 million

F35 design as cheap plane to replace F16, but looking at it cost, it's much more expensive than F22 or F16. F22 by design is the better air superiority fighter, have better stealth and cheaper!

Is there any special purpose for F35 that can't be done using combination of F22,F16 or F/A18?

Eyeless_Camper #2 Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:15 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 182
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
well, they are both diffrent kinds F-22 is Air superiority fighter, F-35 is Multirole, F-22s can not Ground attack as good, and i think the F/A18 and F-16 is aging, so they need new?

"When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the a** with a banjo”
-Chief Officer Steward Dogan on the USS Gurnard


DarkElf #3 Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:01 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

View PostEyeless_Camper, on 04 May 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

well, they are both diffrent kinds F-22 is Air superiority fighter, F-35 is Multirole, F-22s can not Ground attack as good, and i think the F/A18 and F-16 is aging, so they need new?
But  with that kind of price + F22 better stealth ability, surely 2 F22 can do ground attack as good as 1 F35, no?

I thought they have plan to have F22 act as spotter and do data link with F/A18 and F16 who will act as missile boat? Also i read somewhere they have plan to use F/A18 to act as spotter against China new stealth fighter because F/A18 have bigger nose to put bigger radar.

Btw aging in technology or plane age? If only in plane age, what's stopping them to restart F/A18 and F-16 production? Still much cheaper than 1 F35, 1vs 10!

Edited by DarkElf, 04 May 2012 - 08:04 AM.


Eyeless_Camper #4 Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:11 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 182
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
dont quote me on this, im far from expert, but saying planes are aging, i belive the airframe? is the one that is getting old.
the F-35 can also carry more kinds of anti ground weapons
im not sure, just pulling this out of vauge memory

Edited by Eyeless_Camper, 04 May 2012 - 08:13 AM.

"When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the a** with a banjo”
-Chief Officer Steward Dogan on the USS Gurnard


Mobius118 #5 Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:03 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 314
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
The F35 program is way over cost, initially they were supposed to cost less then 150 million an aircraft, but delays and people backing out have changed the number of aircraft ordered. So lets say the project cost a 10,000$ with  50 planes ordered, but then someone decides not to buy their ten planes, so its 40 for 10,000$. the planes now cost more per unit.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum.


FryaDuck #6 Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:28 AM

    Squadron Leader Knucklehead

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1,425
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011
The F-22 is a Fighter, the F-35 is a multirole fighter.

The F-22 is no longer manufactured, the F-35 is entering manufacturing.

There is one type of F-22, there are three types of F-35 (CTOL, VTOL & CATOBAR). You can't fly a F-22 off a carrier, you can fly the F-35 off a carrier (two methods).


Cost overruns are neither here nor there, all aircraft manufactured during peace time have those.
Oderint, dum metuant, tunc ad infernum - Let them hate as long as they fear then go to hell
1st AlphaAce IL-2 (t)(Air)

CanuckOverlord #7 Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:09 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 153
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
There's also, iirc, several 4.5th generation fighters pretending to be 5th gen. Like the F-15SE Silent Eagle, basically a stealthy-ish Eagle. Or the Super Hornet. I personally think Canada should have gotten Silent Eagles over F-35s, they're cheaper and better suited to our needs.

xthetenth #8 Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 1,250
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
The F-35 is a dumping ground for all the requirements that every force in the US military wants, and if you can't figure out what you want, be prepared to pay for it and three other things.

Trophy_Wench #9 Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:27 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 64
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Aw snap, when did this thread start! :Smile_popcorn:

XXXShadowKeeperXXX #10 Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:07 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 133
  • Member since:
    03-21-2012
f-22 is the most epic plan ever!! hehe :Smile_veryhappy:
Fight with yourstrengthNotwith your opponents weakness.......


absboodoo #11 Posted 06 October 2012 - 07:48 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Keep in mind that
1. Once mass production starts it'll further cut down on cost per plane
2. Following one, many country that can't develop their own 4.5-5 gen fighter will be very interested in F35.

Thormenter #12 Posted 06 October 2012 - 10:49 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 136
  • Member since:
    07-25-2012
The price per piece you mention about the F-35 is the price of the much more expensive F-35B Short Take Off Vertical Landing version of the Lightning II. To buy an aircraft for that price just to replace your F-16s would indeed be silly. This expensive aircraft is only of vital importance for countries who wish to preserve a power projection capability with an aircraft carrier, but can't afford "a Nimitz Class"... And indeed the UK seriously considered canceling the F-35B STOVL version and to convert their planned new carriers to the 'cat 'n trap' configuration of the far ceaper F-35C (still more expensive than CTOL F-35A)

The F-35A has on offer: greater stealth capabilities, higher cruise speed and higher situational awareness in the cockpit than the F-16 and that with only a loss in maximum speed (regarded as unimportant these days) and payload (when you want to keep your weapons internally to best use the stealth capabilities of the plane).

It can't compete air to air with a F-22, but it certainly can beat the F-16. Keep in mind the F-35 is meant as a multi-role wile the F-22 is meant as a pure air superiority fighter that can drop some GPS guided small diameter bombs.

Madiba127 #13 Posted 06 October 2012 - 11:02 AM

    Community Helper

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 1,105
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

Been Flying From November 16 2011



Let moonlight touch the sky, Our moon shall aid this fight. Come face thy knightly princess Restore her throne.


From scorching sun to shade, Thou shall find moon brigades. Come forth and love my night, Let Moon's reign be known


Crag_r #14 Posted 06 October 2012 - 11:23 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 4,766
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postmadiba127, on 06 October 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

<iframe frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KaoYz90giTk" width="640"></iframe>

Ah, Civilian reporters talking about things they do not know about and have found a few stats they can swing in their way...



Per Ardua ad Astra "Through Adversity to the Stars"


Royal Australian Air Force


FRAG


Madiba127 #15 Posted 09 October 2012 - 06:33 AM

    Community Helper

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 1,105
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

View PostCrag_r, on 06 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Ah, Civilian reporters talking about things they do not know about and have found a few stats they can swing in their way...
That is normal for the media now days, they find one thing then focus on it for weeks and spin the truth to make someone look bad and the others good
another reason i stopped watching News on TV or even reading most stuff

Been Flying From November 16 2011



Let moonlight touch the sky, Our moon shall aid this fight. Come face thy knightly princess Restore her throne.


From scorching sun to shade, Thou shall find moon brigades. Come forth and love my night, Let Moon's reign be known


JackKnife53 #16 Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:20 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 34
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012
I despise the F-35; why waste our money on it when we could be improving the F-22s, F-15s, and other aircraft. The F-35 was good, to begin with, but when they started wanting to make it a "jack of all trades" aircraft; it began lacking in capability. First of all, they sank way too much money into it. The airframe is only a slightly bit more durable than an F-16 (which means a Sidewinder can knock it out of the air). Also, its being more geared towards attack roles instead of fighter/interceptor roles (which is good) but we already have really capable attack aircraft. The F-18E is more important to us (and worth much more in capability, usage, and maintainance). The VTOL capability is not impressive since our Harriers make for much better VTOL/STOL attack aircraft (reliable airframes and way cheaper). The F-35's only good features are its avionics and electronic systems. In short, the F-35 is proof of how idioitic our politicians are with DEVELOPIN A NEW SUPA FIGHTA. You know, that's why we have the F-22.

Heh #17 Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:02 PM

    Sky Whale Historian

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 10,651
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostJackKnife53, on 02 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I despise the F-35; why waste our money on it when we could be improving the F-22s, F-15s, and other aircraft. The F-35 was good, to begin with, but when they started wanting to make it a "jack of all trades" aircraft; it began lacking in capability. First of all, they sank way too much money into it. The airframe is only a slightly bit more durable than an F-16 (which means a Sidewinder can knock it out of the air). Also, its being more geared towards attack roles instead of fighter/interceptor roles (which is good) but we already have really capable attack aircraft. The F-18E is more important to us (and worth much more in capability, usage, and maintainance). The VTOL capability is not impressive since our Harriers make for much better VTOL/STOL attack aircraft (reliable airframes and way cheaper). The F-35's only good features are its avionics and electronic systems. In short, the F-35 is proof of how idioitic our politicians are with DEVELOPIN A NEW SUPA FIGHTA. You know, that's why we have the F-22.

The F-22 is also worthless really. Sure, it's very comparable to the Su-35, but the latter is way cheaper and the F-22 costs like 150 million a unit or something, while you could use the same amounts of cash to get 2 Su-35s. Something's really wrong at that point, right? It can't be the weapons since the R-37 is sure to be more expensive than a regular AMRAAM, so is the big fat 30mm cannon it has. It's mainly the stealth design, paint, and engines that make it so expensive, but to what extent does that help against some missile like that? Sure, it curbstomps Su-27s with it since both have the same engagement range but the F-22 has stealth and stupidly high agility, but the Su-35 could curbstomp it back since it could engage the F-22 from a way longer range than that. That here is part of the reason such a project got cancelled.

And of course, that leaves the F-35. But you already proved it was terrible, huh? :V
Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

Old_Crow51 #18 Posted 02 November 2012 - 02:31 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012
@heh

The point of the F-22 is that while its expensive, that steath technology makes it that much harder to detect, making it in turn harder to shoot down, and thats not even considering its agility and speed. It also has supercruise, so it is able to launch more missles at a faster speed then a non-supercruise aircraft, the faster you release your missles means the farther and faster they go, a big advantage. Considering that the F-22 basically took on an entire air force during an USAF exercise and managed to only get one aircraft shot down, mind you against the best trained pilots in the world, says something about its abilities


Proof of Ace: A6M2 A6M5 F4F F2G P-51A

Thormenter #19 Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:01 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 136
  • Member since:
    07-25-2012

View PostOld_Crow51, on 02 November 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

@heh

The point of the F-22 is that while its expensive, that steath technology makes it that much harder to detect, making it in turn harder to shoot down, and thats not even considering its agility and speed. It also has supercruise, so it is able to launch more missles at a faster speed then a non-supercruise aircraft, the faster you release your missles means the farther and faster they go, a big advantage. Considering that the F-22 basically took on an entire air force during an USAF exercise and managed to only get one aircraft shot down, mind you against the best trained pilots in the world, says something about its abilities
F-35 differs in this only by agility and mission. It is kinda difficult to compare a fighter bomber with a pure fighter (here I am again with that story).

View PostJackKnife53, on 02 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I despise the F-35; why waste our money on it when we could be improving the F-22s, F-15s, and other aircraft. The F-35 was good, to begin with, but when they started wanting to make it a "jack of all trades" aircraft; it began lacking in capability. First of all, they sank way too much money into it. The airframe is only a slightly bit more durable than an F-16 (which means a Sidewinder can knock it out of the air). Also, its being more geared towards attack roles instead of fighter/interceptor roles (which is good) but we already have really capable attack aircraft. The F-18E is more important to us (and worth much more in capability, usage, and maintainance). The VTOL capability is not impressive since our Harriers make for much better VTOL/STOL attack aircraft (reliable airframes and way cheaper). The F-35's only good features are its avionics and electronic systems. In short, the F-35 is proof of how idioitic our politicians are with DEVELOPIN A NEW SUPA FIGHTA. You know, that's why we have the F-22.
As far as I know, only planes like A-10 can survive a Sidewinder, so not realy a flaw for the F-35. The F-18E is indeed a splendid attacker, but it lacks the Stealth to penetrate a real defended area. It's sensors (and thus the pilots situational awareness) are inferior to the Lightning II. And it is not because the Navy has a 4+ generation jet fighter that a multinational 5th generation might not be a good idea, especially for countries that do not have a 4+ generation fighter but a 4th or even 3rd generation to replace.

hueykablooie #20 Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:50 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    06-28-2012
the short answer to the original question is that the f-35 can do exactly what the F/A-18, and F-15E, as well as the F-16, A-10, and Harriers, but it can do all of that in one package. the problem is, all these were designed with the Cold War in mind. that meant planes that were able to shoot the Russians out of the sky while simultaneously having squadrons take out the armored battalions on the ground. this is why we have Hellfire missiles being used to take out individual people. the F-35 is the first manned strike aircraft that's been designed from the ground-up to fight outside of the cold war. its designed to work with smaller-yield weaponry, guided more precisely by more modern avionics, to support troops in tighter and tighter urban battlefields.