@
gambit : Is the USAF's plan to use the f-22 and f-35 in a hi-lo mix, similar to the f-15/f-16 combo? If so, doesn't the small number of f-22s preclude that? I mean, the ratio of f-15 to f-16s in the fleet and the ratio of f-22 to f-35s is so different.
Back in WW II, the number of escort fighters to bombers were grossly out in favor of the bombers. With today's more precise weapons, a single F-35 can produce the desirable effects of a WW II or even the Cold War era flight of fighter-bombers. We proved that with the F-117 back in Desert Storm. The -22 will not always be the -35's escort. The -22's mission will be preemptive at best and deterrent at least, meaning it will try to preemptively destroy any opposition air forces to clear the path for the -35s, or make the enemy wary of entering any suspicious airspace and corridor for fear of meeting a flight of -22s. Personally, I do not like the quantity we have. I would rather we have a thousand F-22s.
Look at it this way...If a flight of PAKs were on their way to intercept a flight of F-35s and all of a sudden, two PAKs went down from two AMRAAMs, what do you think the rest of the PAKs will do? For all you know, there could be just four F-22s escorting 10 F-35s and even though outnumbered, they just scattered the enemy.
Also, would the f-35 be useful to other air forces who will not get the f-22?
As an example, the israeli air force had an f-15/f-16 combo like the USAF. But in future, they will have only f-35s, no f-22. Would f-35s alone be able to take on all spectrum of aerial warfare, like the 15/16 combo could until now?
For those that can only get the F-35, they will have to use the -35 in the role of the -22 when needed, and as multi-role fighters when needed.
Remember that I said this before: In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours, and cheating is allowed.
Operation Bolo back in the Vietnam War proved that the heavier and less maneuverable F-4 could outfight the lighter and more agile MIG-21 if the proper tactics were employed. It all depends on the pilot. Operation Bolo proved that truth and the F-4 had no gun in that fight. In a single day, the North Vietnamese lost half of its MIG-21 fleet, then the other half were grounded until other, but not necessarily better, tactics were employed. After Operation Bolo, the -21s were much less of a threat, not just because there were less of them, but equally because the North Vietnamese pilots were unable to force the F-4 pilots to fight where the -21's strengths lies.
The F-35's usefulness to other air forces will depend on how creative they are.
And what about the USN - presently they have a twin engined, heavy f-18/f-18SH mix. They will not have F-22s in future, only f-35. Is it wise to go for only the jack of all trades aircraft?
The Navy is a special case. An aircraft carrier is essentially an expeditionary air force, designed to temporarily provide air presence until superior forces arrived and/or can make a longer and stronger presence. For decades, the US Navy had to pay to support several platforms per carrier deployment and it is not that financially attractive any more. If it is possible to have 'stealth' for the Navy -- and it is -- then the Navy need a 'stealthy' jack-of-all-trades.
Once stealth fighters proliferate, wouldn't air combat capabilities still matter, since neither the f-35 nor the PAKFA can see each other from a distance? I mean, as of now the f-35 can rely on stealth and the ability to see and shoot first. But once that advantage is negated, wouldn't PAKFAs and similar aircrafts with much more load and missile carrying ability, and much better aerodynamic performance, have an upper hand?
I have to disagree on that. I have hinted on how the US have effectively defeated 'stealth' and that is all I will say. Sorry.