Comparing F-22 and F-35: A Comprehensive Analysis of Their Capabilities

When it comes to the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, both aircraft represent significant advancements in military aviation technology. However, their design goals and capabilities differ significantly. In this article, we will explore the unique roles and performance of these two iconic fighter jets, backed by years of personal experience and simulation data.

The Background of the F-22 and F-35

Both the F-22 and F-35 were developed as part of the United States Air Force (USAF) program to maintain air superiority. However, the F-22 was originally designed with a narrow mission focus on air superiority. The initial plan was to build approximately 2,500 F-22 aircraft to take out enemy air defenses first, ensuring uninterrupted control of the skies. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the need for this level of air superiority decreased, and the number of aircraft built was significantly reduced.

The F-35, on the other hand, was designed to be a multi-role aircraft, capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. It was created as a successor to the F-22, taking over after the F-22 had neutralized the primary air defense threats, and continuing to engage a wide range of ground targets.

Design Philosophies and Capabilities

The F-22 was conceived in the early 1990s with a primary focus on air superiority. It required exceptional agility and advanced stealth capabilities to counter Russian S-400 and other advanced air defense systems. The F-22 was equipped with over 5 million lines of software, a staggering amount for a fighter aircraft. Many of the F-22’s sensors were adapted for the F-35, along with a range of air-to-ground sensors and helmet-mounted displays that enhance the pilot’s situational awareness.

In contrast, the F-35 was designed to be a versatile aircraft, combining advanced stealth capabilities with multi-role functions. It has more than 8 million lines of software, which includes features such as ambidextrous controls and a more user-friendly cockpit display system. The F-35’s helmet external cameras and its ability to fire missiles without needing visual confirmation on the Heads-Up Display (HUD) offer significant tactical advantages.

Performance in Combat Drills and Simulations

My experience in software design for the F-22 for 12 years and for the F-35 for 4 years has given me a deep appreciation for both aircraft. From a personal standpoint, I don’t have a favorite, as they are both exceptional in their own ways. However, I have participated in numerous simulation events where both the F-22 and F-35 have demonstrated exceptional capabilities.

Simulation exercises have shown that both aircraft perform remarkably well against various threats. They are nearly matchless in their encounters, with only the occasional simulated failure or lucky shot from the opposing side. In recent instrumented air combat exercises in the United States, Europe, and Asia, involving USAF and non-USA aircraft, the F-22 maintained an impressive kill ratio of 427 to 2. This data aligns well with our simulation results. While I haven’t yet seen detailed data on F-35 instrumented encounters, our simulations suggest that the F-35 performs at a comparable level to the F-22.

The F-22 excels in maneuverability, making it a formidable opponent in dogfights. However, the F-35’s helmet external cameras and advanced targeting systems compensate for this gap, allowing it to engage targets with greater precision and efficiency.

Conclusion

Both the F-22 and F-35 are remarkable aircraft that serve crucial roles in modern military operations. The F-22 was designed for the primary mission of air superiority, while the F-35 incorporates multi-role capabilities to handle a wide range of combat scenarios. Both aircraft have demonstrated exceptional performance in simulations and combat exercises. Ultimately, the choice between them depends on the specific mission requirements and the operational environment.

As a former software designer for both aircraft and an active participant in their development and testing, I can confidently say that my admiration for both is unwavering. They each have unique strengths that cater to different operational needs.