I thought about putting this in the current F-22 or F-35 thread but decided it might be best to allow it a new thread.

Has anyone read anything about training / mock fighting between F-22 and F-35 fighters.

The F-35 is still in flight testing, it won't have been used for DACT and won't be for awhile.

It would be interesting to see what happens when two LO fighters try duking it out.
I remember in the 80's reading F-16 pilots saying that they generally weren't too worried going up against F-15's because so long as they could survive the initial sparrow shot, they could get in close where they had the advantage.
I wonder how it will play out F-22 vs F-35? I would imagine under most circumstances the F-22 would be able to dictate the engagement though wouldn't it?

Watch the coming Transformers installment.

F22:



F35:

IMHO, it would come down to a knife-fight.

Neither the F-22 nor F-35 can get a lock on the other, both being stealthy. No BVR engagements, and heat-seekers aren't too good either. So it comes down to guns, present-day dogfighting.

In this scenario, the 2 planes are evenly matched. Practically the same across the board.

The F-35 would seem the more cost-effective solution vs stealth foes. The F-22 would still be preferred against lesser non-peer air forces with detectable aircraft.

Analogy: In a World-War 2 dogfight with machine-cannons, why hava a larger, more expensive plane, when a smaller one can do the exact same thing? These days, not like plane armor matters, so extra size and weight in a dogfight - is simply extra size and weight.

Much of this is just speculation since we don't know the actual capabilities, but I wouldn't count on especially F-35 being immune to detection and engagement by F-22 radar at shorter (but far from cannon) range. Also, WVR any AAM with FPA seeker should most likely engage both planes without problem, and given any side angle to show bits of the rear fuselage, 80's era gas-cooled InSb reticle/rosette scanning seekers would most likely track fine also. An open question is the level of IRCCM, but I'm unaware of either plane being about to get any sort of DIRCM, so that would probably leave both vulnerable to each other's AIM-9X shots on the merge. And once you maneuver to the opponent's rear hemisphere, then for sure.



The smaller plane in this case has also considerable less thrust per weight by enough of a margin to give F-22 considerable advantage even if you assume a gunfight...

F-22 has TVC, better TWR and lower wingloading. In a WVR fight it should dominate.

JSF/F-35 was originally intended to be the multi-mission "lo" in the hi-lo mix, as the F-16 is now. Accordingly, not as optimized for air-to-air (IIRC no internal cannon for the B or C models), and less elaborate stealth features. Also slower, (again IIRC) original specs were for Mach 1.2 and that's what LM will be delivering.

I'm unsure how the F35 will be able to deal with the F22's cruising speed of M1.8

I think that was just alot of boasting as it's one giant IF they can survive the initial shot and not be in an disadvantaged position.

Concur. Especially since they'd be fired in pairs and avoiding them would probably require turns or other velocity changes that would not put them in an advantageous position, if not still outside WVR (but inside AIM-7) range. Sparrow was frequently ineffective, but generally *not* because the target bored straight into the envelope and didn't attempt to turn away. NK MiGs used to get into 'freight trains' where they would spiral into each other so engaging them meant putting a MiG onto your tail; Phattoms would sometimes break this up by pulling out and firing AIM-7 at them. They often missed, but it generally forced the MiGs to break their protective formation which was the desired goal.

While it is hardly an ideal 'Plan A' that involves dodging missiles flying at you, given the effectiveness of Sparrows combined with the SARH seeker (ie One target per aircraft) where is a reasonable chance in a frontal engagement they could close the distance at speed, which given a likely closure rate of over 600kts easy, would put them within the first AIM9 shot very quickly, then its on for young and old.
If the F-16's have any level of numerical superiority the F-15's won't have a chance to keep them at range.

Then of course there are engagements where the F-15's don't detect the vipers at all BVR and it is a straight up WVR fight.

Well there's a difference "generally weren't too worried going up against F-15's" and being able to overwhelm them with numbers and take the casualties involved. Even with numerical superiority at least one of the group is going to take to AIM-7 and not really be able to turn and burn...a fast target moving head on in a straight line is still a pretty straight forward engagement. Not trying to be an F-15 fanboy, just saying an F-16 driver who thinks an F-15 isn't something to worry about is, IMO, being optimistic.

Yes if the F-15s get jumped they're at a disadvantage. Ditto the F-16s if its the other way around.

And im quit sure that m1.8 isnt the cruising speed for a f22. I know it has super-cruise-capabiliy but 1.8 sounds to much without the use off a-burners.

AFAIK cruise should be at about 1.2

Regarding stealth: i can be completely off but imho you can only lessen the returning-energy till a specific point. Some month ago i read that with sophisticated radars systems you will have a fair chance to even detect modern stealth crafts. What you simply need is a cooperating network off several sensors which are able to share all information. Stealth basicly deflects the radar-signals. A network would even enable you to detect the deflected signals and use this information for target-processing.

Until now every technology was countered by another enovation after quit short times. I see no difference here regarding the current stealth-hype.

over M1.6 has been mentioned as the super cruising speed of the Raptor in more then one source.

Where? (truthfull sources)

Actualy there are materials that do absorb radar signals. Not just reflect them.

Indeed, plus having to have an entire intact network of radars (as opposed to just one) to be able to detect the enemy makes an AD system that much more fragile and limited.

According to Lookheed Martin the F-22 can cruise at >1,5 Mach.
ISTR that the specification from the USAF called for >1,5@50'000ft.

Air Forces Monthly puts it at 1,82 Mach, while a year ago other sorces put it at 1,72 Mach.

Not neccessarily, there doesn't neccessarily need to be any radars per se. Transmitter(s) can be your ordinary cellphone network (or your network of ordinary radars or what ever) and receivers are what they are. Personaly i don't see why it would be fragile at all. Come to think of it, you don't neccessarily need transmitters at all, if your opponent has them. I'm not sure how system like this works on targets moving in low altitude, but as i understand stealth planes usualy operate at high altitude.

On the offchance that we're not talking at cross purposes:

1. Explain to me how cellphone transmitters might detect F-22s.

2. Relying on multiple AD radars to detect LO aircraft means that you need multiple radars to be within range of said aircraft. That means you need a lot of radars. One of the F-22's advantages is that it forces the enemy to expend far more money on AD if that AD is to remain effective, so much so that most countries won't bother. In addition, losing one radar means you lose that capability, and the rest of your radar network is rendered useless.

Bistatic arrangements using civilian transmissions is possible for localization in theory. Perhaps in practice; I seem to remember someone making such a claim for Finland. That said, weapon delivery would have to use some kind of targeting emission cued by the wide area detection set with the appropriate C3 system. That would take a rather large amount of sophistication AFAIK. Also I seem to remember that radio station towers were actually more useful for this purpose than cell phone towers. I would guess either system would be vulnerable to attacks on the power grid of said territory.

1. Basicaly same way as regular radar does, this time receiver just is in different location than transmitter. Then you just process those signals you received and compare it to what you got millisecond before. Look for the changes and compare it to the radar screen. Somebody who can explain this in enlish can do it, my english isn't good enough.

2. If that network is properly made it doesn't require any single radar to work. You just need somebody to send signals to the air and others to listen if those signals return to them. Then you figure out thy that signal ended up to that place.