Both aircraft have had their problems. They will be very good fighter aircraft once Lockheed Martin fixes their problems.
The PAK-FA can detect, target, and destroy the F-5 at any range. The F-22 should be able to target get the first shot against the PAF-FA. Most aircraft design experts think the F-22 has much lower RCS then the PAK-FA.
The F-22 has a reported RCS of 0.0001. The RCS of F-35 is stated at about 0.1-0.05. Su-35 is component adversary for the F-35 since. The F-22 has much better stealth then F-35. The Russians are developing the PAK-FA for a reason.
Oh please. Just how long are we supposed to wait? The craptor was conceived in the disco era for pete's sake!
At any range? So, from 5000 km away?
Of course the f22 should be able to get first shot against the Pak-Fa; it's american.
Sources on both statements please.
And no military anywhere ever lies about the capabilities of it's hardware, the american military least of all.
A. That's neither here nor there in our discussion. The point is that the newer jets can aren't going to have to RTB as often after an engagement.
B. Seeing as how fighters these days are often required for CAS roles (not always an A-10 available), the amount of weapons carried is a big deal. Top speed also comes into play for that role, especially when aircraft aren't in the immediate vicinity (10 minutes). Eagles push Mach 2.5, Falcons can get to Mach 2, Tigers top at about Mach 1.5. Obviously, this is going hampered by a combat load, however, the teens are still going to get to the target first from an equal start. Then there's the larger fuel loads on the teen series, that would allow for a longer loiter time if they didn't have to sprint (all three aren't going to be efficient at full augment).
C. I can see price tag, but with everything you'd have to do to bring them up to par, I just don't see the point in reaching that far back. I know you've been emphasizing low maintenance, but that's a really, really ambiguous term.
So what? What if after one engagement newer jets, heavier with fuel and capabilities, lost?
Because the F5 was never considered for nor pressed into use as a ground attack aircraft? Because with it's maintenance and fuel economy in terms of both time and money, it's actually better suited than most fighters to the role.
The teens cruise subsonic with a weapons load, just like the F5. Top speed really isn't that big a deal; there has only been one supersonic dogfight kill in history.
Even if the teens
do get there
fractionally faster than the F5, with the F5s economy and quick turn around times it gets there cheaper and has the benefit of being able to be kept in the air (by comparison) constantly.
Aren't the larger fuel loads of the teens offset by their higher fuel consumption?
It's not just low price tag, it's low maintenance and running costs and ease of flight.
When all america's multi-zeta-trillion dollar uber fighters have been shot down she'll need a fighter she can mass produce quickly.
We saw america win the battle of production in WW2, defeating Germany's superior tanks with inferior M4s. See the paralell?
And you say up to par, but just how much do fighters
really need all the features they have? Feature creep much?
I think people have a tendency to pick sides and argue points out of stubbornness, hence why I'm not mentioning some of the advantages of the teen series over the F5 (which I would offset with AWACS usage) and you're not seeing the benefits (and there are a great many) of the F5.