F-35 mounted helmet & F-22 vectoring nozzles

F-22 has vectoring nozzles. It increases the Raptors manueverability. But the moving part has its own weakness. It's easier to radar to detect the moving parts.

F-35 has no vectoring nozzles. but the manuever (for todays fighter) is to slow. does F-35 wants to replace vectoring nozzles with mounted helmet?so it could has the same capability of attack the enemy with F-22?

but F-35 still couldn't fire the 20mm cannon by mounted helmet in dogfight.

thx before

You're making a lot of assumptions about both aircraft, with regards to detectibility(F-22) and lack of manueverability(F-35). It's not the fact that a plane has moving parts that make it less stealthy(all stealth aircraft have moving parts, or they couldn't fly). It's the shape and construction of the moving parts that are what's important. As for the F-35, you are (A.) assuming that it is not a manueverable aircraft
(B.) ignoring the fact that with its very low observable characteristics, it will be able to get into firing positions more easily than a non-stealthy platform.
(C.) if it should be discovered, the helmet mounted sight along with high off boresite missiles can help compensate for any lack of ability to point the nose at the target.
(D.) the pilots of both F-22s and F35s should enjoy a huge advantage in situational awareness over their adversaries giving them the option to engage/disengage at their leisure, and their stealth designs make it difficult for enemy fighters to lock their weapons systems onto them.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
As for the F-35, you are (A.) assuming that it is not a manueverable aircraft

And, remember, since it does not have thrust vectoring and was not meant with direct dog/gunfighting in mind, it really isn't when compared with something made to be so like the F-22.

(B.) ignoring the fact that with its very low observable characteristics, it will be able to get into firing positions more easily than a non-stealthy platform.

When you're well within visual range to the point that HMS and TVC come into play it is quite likely, in fact, that you will be detected if you are against anything with a somewhat respectable radar, and more so as more AESA variants come out.

(C.) if it should be discovered, the helmet mounted sight along with high off boresite missiles can help compensate for any lack of ability to point the nose at the target.

Remember, though, the standard layout for a multirole aircraft (which the F-35 is, and it seems you are arguing for) would be a couple of bombs and a pair of AMRAAMs unless you want to compromise the vaunted stealth abilities with external stores. So the F-35 carrying WVR missiles is actually unlikely unless utilized only for A2A engagements, which rather defeats the purpose of a multirole A/C.

(D.) the pilots of both F-22s and F35s should enjoy a huge advantage in situational awareness over their adversaries giving them the option to engage/disengage at their leisure, and their stealth designs make it difficult for enemy fighters to lock their weapons systems onto them.

Radar weapons, yes. But again, at points where HMS and TVC come into play both aircraft have a pretty big heat signature. The F-35 is putting out 40,000 with a single engine (and I suspect more with an afterburner), the F-22 puts out a little bit less than double that. I'm not debating win-or-lose situations, but do remember that TVC and HMS are most useful at close ranges when radar weapons are less likely to be used.

Also of note is that F-35 and F-22 were designed to fight A2A with BVR supremacy. Although the F-22 was also designed with some niftiness for close range combat, F-35 really was not. In fact, 2 out of the 3 (and I even think that most people would consider the F-35C over the F-35A which has the gun) F-35's don't even have a gun. The F-35, being multirole was made to carry out several types of missions and be flexible while on sortie. So chances are that unless they want to compromise their stealth capabilities with external ordinance, they've got to work with a relatively small selection of A2A. Just a thought.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
When you're well within visual range to the point that HMS and TVC come into play it is quite likely, in fact, that you will be detected…

I don't think that's what the other poster means. Having stealth allows you to position yourself in a great advantage and dictate the engagement, this means outside of his sensor coverage. What that translates to is being able to transition from BVR into WVR and get "kills" before the enemy really has time to present an effective response. By which point you have merged back into BVR where you can proceed to end the engagement and leave, if choose to.

The F-22A Raptor has demonstrated this capability numerous times against multiple platforms. Like BVR most of the WVR "kills" that it gets it does so while the enemy is not aware of it's position until after the fact. This is not limited to IR missiles either, the F-22A has several undetected simulated gun kills as well.

The F-35 is not as maneuverable as the F-22, sure, but it is maneuverable enough, anymore so and it would defeat the purpose. However it is worth noting that the F-35 has a more impressive sensor and avionics suite, than the F-22, when it comes to close in combat.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
…which rather defeats the purpose of a multirole A/C.

Not really, multi role means just that, being able to perform a wide set of missions. Not simply always carrying a mixed ordinance load. This might not be true for the US since we have the F-22 etc… but for other countries the F-35 could very well be loaded and act as an air superiority fighter.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
…but do remember that TVC and HMS are most useful at close ranges when radar weapons are less likely to be used.

True but then again the F-22 has had great success in WVR combat even against, at times, considerable odds. While the simulated OPFOR aircraft have had the benefit of JHMCS and AIM-9X the F-22 has not. These results therefore should give us reason to question. Especially since there are documented cases of pilots struggling to target an F-22 even when clearly visible.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
In fact, 2 out of the 3 (and I even think that most people would consider the F-35C over the F-35A which has the gun) F-35's don't even have a gun.

The F-35A has a built in internal gun with 180 rounds of ammunition. Both the F-35B and F-35C will have the option to carry an external low observable gun pod currently being developed. This gun pod would carry more rounds (220) and it would be mounted on the centerline weapons station. This weapons station is present on the A model as well and it is currently only certified to carry the gun pod. This technically could allow the F-35A to carry two gun systems, one internal and one external with no significant drawbacks.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The F-22A Raptor has demonstrated this capability numerous times against multiple platforms. Like BVR most of the WVR "kills" that it gets it does so while the enemy is not aware of it's position until after the fact. This is not limited to IR missiles either, the F-22A has several undetected simulated gun kills as well.

Remember, though, that that particular poster was referring to the F-35 with those particular points in mind. F-22's stats aren't quite applicable to the F-35.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
As for the F-35, you are...

The F-35 is not as maneuverable as the F-22, sure, but it is maneuverable enough, anymore so and it would defeat the purpose. However it is worth noting that the F-35 has a more impressive sensor and avionics suite, than the F-22, when it comes to close in combat.

I'm not actually trying to be sarcastic at all, I'm actually wondering. How so? I'm actually curious as to the measures taken to increase the WVR sensor capabilities on the F-35.

Not really, multi role means just that, being able to perform a wide set of missions. Not simply always carrying a mixed ordinance load. This might not be true for the US since we have the F-22 etc… but for other countries the F-35 could very well be loaded and act as an air superiority fighter.

Another actual question, how many countries are looking to buy the F-35 as the primary fighter with no larger alternatives? The only thing I can immediately think of would be Canada, but the order's not even in on that one yet.

True but then again the F-22 has had great success in WVR combat even against, at times, considerable odds. While the simulated OPFOR aircraft have had the benefit of JHMCS and AIM-9X the F-22 has not. These results therefore should give us reason to question. Especially since there are documented cases of pilots struggling to target an F-22 even when clearly visible.

True, but what has the F-22 combated? F-15's? F-16's? I would very much like to see how it would suffice against more recent aircraft, the EF-2000, JAS39, Rafale, etc. Just to see how well it has all worked against the newer developments.

The F-35A has a built in internal gun with 180 rounds of ammunition. Both the F-35B and F-35C will have the option to carry an external low observable gun pod currently being developed. This gun pod would carry more rounds (220) and it would be mounted on the centerline weapons station. This weapons station is present on the A model as well and it is currently only certified to carry the gun pod. This technically could allow the F-35A to carry two gun systems, one internal and one external with no significant drawbacks.

Of course, we've had many arguments on the feasibility of WVR combat in general. This would include missiles. So the question arises: How many would decide that a gun pod was worth mounting on it? I mean, I love debating about gunfights, but even I know that the statistic use of guns is pretty darned small. It does come into mind when there are large fights when missile supplies can be exhausted, but how often does that happen?

reply to post by Darkpr0


Let's say that you have an aircraft with similar manueverability to the F-16, but has stealth, AESA, sensor fusion, JHMCS, high off boresite missiles, excellent BVR, etc... The majority of the time, the pilot should be able to dictate when engagements occur, allowing him the advantage of surprise. If the F-35 is loaded for A2A, he should do pretty well.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Of course, we've had many arguments on the feasibility of WVR combat in general. This would include missiles. So the question arises: How many would decide that a gun pod was worth mounting on it? I mean, I love debating about gunfights, but even I know that the statistic use of guns is pretty darned small. It does come into mind when there are large fights when missile supplies can be exhausted, but how often does that happen?

That's just about exactly what they said going into Vietnam, and there were actually quite a few gun kills during that time. Including (and I'm only throwing this in for interest sake), a gun kill by a pair of A-1 Skyraiders on a MiG-21 (I THINK it was a 21). There were a lot more gun kills than people realize during Vietnam.

Yeah Zaphod it was a MiG-21. I recall seeing that episode of Dogfights on the History Channel.

Gun cannons should very much remain on aircraft for a while to come. Except UCAVs as those are expandable.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Remember, though, that that particular poster was referring to the F-35 with those particular points in mind...

It really does not matter as both share the same basic design (stealth) features and similar sensors/avionics. The F-35 should (if flown right) be able to enter WVR with greater situational awareness which means the OPFOR will not be aware of it until some time after the fact. Remember that "within visual range" missiles have significant range on them and can be used outside human eye range.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
How so? I'm actually curious as to the measures taken to increase the WVR sensor capabilities on the F-35.

The most significant increases include the helmet mounted display, the multi function cockpit display, the electro-optical targeting system and the distributed aperture system. The last two compromise the electro-optical sensor system which is essentially a merger of fire control and targeting with the sensors and avionics. Both aircraft can carry the AIM-9X to take advantage of high off bore sight capabilities.

Here is some information of all the various systems…

F-35 Sensors
F-35 Cockpit
F-35 Sensors Part II
F-35 Capabilities
F-35 Avionics And Sensors
F-35 EOTS
F-35 HMDS

Overall the F-35 currently has the Raptor, and basically just about anything else, beat in the close in environment. It's wide array of advanced integrated sensors, displays, and avionics ensure total coverage of the battlefield.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
…but how often does that happen?

Not too often, still should it occur the F-35 is prepared. That is what I was trying to point out, that all versions of the F-35 will be able to carry a gun.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by WestPoint23]

WOW! U guys are so busy to collect points huh?



but it's ok! thx for all of ur answer.

I take a conclusion that F-35 was not made for air dominance, its main role is for aerial bombing/deep strike bombing.

and i think the contractor such like Lockheed knows what they doing.

but i agree that F-35 is a heavy, slow, and funny fighter.

maybe STALMA would take her role to fight !?

however, in the real world, the best opinion is from the pilot it-self! are they satisfied or not.

let's ust see

reply to post by Eastpolar Commander


Who are you agreeing with? Your post was a little confusing, as it sounds like you're agreeing with yourself. It's true that the main purpose of the F-35 isn't Air Dominance as the F-22, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have phenomenal A2A capabilities.

And once more, the Stalma=Not real.

Shattered OUT...