The real question shouldn’t be F-22 v. F-35 but why we need fighter pilots in the first place. With the state of radars and missiles, I don’t think there will ever be another meaningful dogfight with a US aircraft, aerial combat will be done from standoff range in the future, if at all.
Put the money into drones and figure out how to remove more Americans from the battlefields.
“The real question shouldn’t be F-22 v. F-35 but why we need fighter pilots in the first place.”
That’s a mistake that’s been made by SecDefs in the past.
Your drones are awesome until somebody hacks them and uses them to destroy your SAMs and bombers.
Meat in the seat - accept no substitute.
“The real question shouldn’t be F-22 v. F-35 but why we need fighter pilots in the first place.”
This air to air shoot down in Syria is the first we’ve had since 1999?!
The next step in drone technology will be swarming — no manned aircraft will withstand an attack by fifty networked supersonic drones. Manned aircraft will be for peacetime only!
You might want to run that one by the Syrian pilot who got whacked earlier this week?
“aerial combat will be done from standoff range in the future, if at all.”
There will be aerial combat, just no dogfights.
The best combo, and one that is in test now, is using the F-35 super-advanced RADAR, even more advanced than the F-22 or any other aircraft in the world, as a datalink between it (control) and 1/2 dozen UACV...with precision weapons and missiles.
The F-35 pilot just has to LOOK at the displayed target and push a button to take it out.
And everything is stealth.
That's the sort of thinking that got the F4 Phantom designed without a gun. I also recall that before the first Gulf War, for years the talk was there was no reason to build main battle tanks like the Abrams and German Leopard. Then one of the biggest, if not the biggest, armor battle took place.
Trying to predict the battle needs of the future is more than a little bit difficult.
Mark