Pentagon to end F-22 program

[F-15 Eagle]

Although I'm disappointed this really does not come as a surprise at all since I already knew the Pentagon will kill the F-22 program. The USAF will get 187 F-22s but thats it and instead put more funding into the F-35.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2009/04/06/f22_raptor_lockheed.html?cxntlid=brkng_nws_bnr

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pentagon-to-end-f-22-production-2009-04-06.html

[jaffo4011]

what a shame for the usaf,187 aircraft willl barely cover its needs and stretch the f15 fleet even further...im not sure that f35's will be a adequate performer in the air to air role......

looks like japan will almost certainly be buying typhoons for its air defence requirements then.........

[AegisFC]

This is just Secretary Gate's recommendation, perhaps we should wait until after Congress passes the budget, they can modify the budget as they see fit.

[hellfire]

so that means any possibilty of F22 export is diminished.

[AegisFC]

so that means any possibilty of F22 export is diminished.

F-22 export is illegal under US law so it was never an option to anyone.

[Salty Dog]

This is just Secretary Gate's recommendation, perhaps we should wait until after Congress passes the budget, they can modify the budget as they see fit.

US lawmakers have the tendency to increase rather than decrease defense acquisitions. F-22 work is spread around enough that no one will really want to see jobs go away. My humble opinion.

[AegisFC]

US lawmakers have the tendency to increase rather than decrease defense acquisitions. F-22 work is spread around enough that no one will really want to see jobs go away. My humble opinion.

That's my reading as well, already the affected congressmen are gearing up for a fight.

[Ananda]

US lawmakers have the tendency to increase rather than decrease defense acquisitions. F-22 work is spread around enough that no one will really want to see jobs go away. My humble opinion.

Agreed on that, however the stouch allies in US congress for F 22 seems rely on republican that increasingly becomes minority. The democrats seems more on getting the economics packaged. In sense I read thay they bellive by getting F 35 and sacrivicing the F 22 will still get the roughly same jobs.

Perhaps with this also show potential the new 'stealth' F 15 will also getting US orders ??:)

[spectre000]

I was betting on just another 20 plane order stretched out over the next 18 months, not a full cancellation. I'll still believe it only when the final budget gets voted though. We could still see F-22 production pass 200 planes.

It's good to see increased funding for the F-35 though. I don't buy all the naysayers saying this plane isn't good. I'll take a US trained pilot in the F-35 vs a Chinese/Russian Su-30 anyday.

[Feanor]

F-22 export is illegal under US law so it was never an option to anyone.

Laws can be changed. It is indeed an option. The US government just doesn't seem to keen on it.

[Sea Toby]

With allies worried about any delays of the F-35 program, Gates wants to speed up the F-35 program instead of building more F-22s. Wise choice.

This should finish the F-22 once and for all. Last year four more were bought waiting for a decision from a new administration. There are more Democrats in the Senate and House, repeating last year's additional four will be much more difficult with this year's Congress. I knew it was over when Gates was confirmed as the defense secretary. He hasn't changed his mind whatsoever.

[rjmaz1]

We should consider this good news.

It was the only logical solution. I saw this coming a mile off, the money will be MUCH better spent in the JSF program.

Now we just need the official nail in the coffin.

The US will now be able to release the true performance characteristics of the F-35 without worrying about it stealing sales from the F-22.

[knightrider4]

What will Mr Kopp do now???

[Sea Toby]

Probably come to America and attempt to change public opinion here. But our defense media is a bit more on top of the issue. At the moment Obama can do no wrong with our media, they would tear him apart.

If Australia is going to buy more C-17s, this year will be your last chance. I am sure if there are no more orders Boeing will have to close the plant after finishing the last one.

With the A-400 program in a mess, Lockheed's C-130J-30s are beginning to look good again. Or the CASA 295M and C-27J Spartan.

[benithisrael]

The f-22s costs far outweigh its requirements in the current requirement scenario. Further with the economy in turmoil its better to go in for the f-35 than f-22. Anyway the defence establishment is not going to give up the most superior fighter of present day standards that easily atleast they will push funding for another low cost version of f-22. real soon.

[Salty Dog]

The f-22s costs far outweigh its requirements in the current requirement scenario. Further with the economy in turmoil its better to go in for the f-35 than f-22. Anyway the defence establishment is not going to give up the most superior fighter of present day standards that easily atleast they will push funding for another low cost version of f-22. real soon.

This is interesting. What "low cost version" of the F-22 are you bringing up?

[Red]

My understanding is that the F-22 production will stop in 2010 and momentarily thereafter. There are still hundreds of F15C/Es, F 18s and more than 1000 F16s to be replaced. No doubt many would be replaced by F-35s, however, I do not believe that they will cap production of F-22s at 187 planes. At some point, more F-22s will be procured to replace ageing planes.

Further, US allies would be looking for replacements for the F18 E/Fs and F15 varients in the time to come anyhow. I admit that there could be a new plane altogether but the F15 lasted that long and is still relevant...

Also, LM has under-reported the strengths of the F35 by thier own admission. It is a better aircraft then what they have always been saying.

Edit: I just feel that this no more than political hedging on the part of the Obama administration at this juncture of his presidency. Things may look different later; especially when the American economy recovers. Things may look even more different in a post Obama presidency.

[SpudmanWP]

This is interesting. What "low cost version" of the F-22 are you bringing up?

Maybe F-22 with F-35 radar, F-35 avionics, and F-35 RAM.

[Falstaff]

however, I do not believe that they will cap production of F-22s at 187 planes. At some point, more F-22s will be procured to replace ageing planes.


In your opinion, what point would that be? Once the decision to stop production is final they'll stop producing the long-lead-items first, then step by step the other bits and parts. Machinery will be sold or scrapped, personnel will be assigned to other jobs or companies, as long as providing spare parts is not affected. I don't know what the F-22's ramp-up costs were, bloody expensive is my guess.
It would be very, very expensive to resume production again.

Maybe F-22 with F-35 radar, F-35 avionics, and F-35 RAM.

Then why not buy F-35 anyway?

[F-15 Eagle]

Maybe they will finally put 6 internal AMRAAMs or 12 of those new smaller AAMs(can't remember the name) and add a supercruse capability to the F-35?

[F-15 Eagle]

We should consider this good news.

It was the only logical solution. I saw this coming a mile off, the money will be MUCH better spent in the JSF program.

Now we just need the official nail in the coffin.

The US will now be able to release the true performance characteristics of the F-35 without worrying about it stealing sales from the F-22.

I could see it coming too, no surprise to me.

It would be nice to see how good the F-35 really is by the way. That way people will shut the hell up about the F-35 not being good for ATA.

F-35>>>>>>>Su-30.:nutkick

[Red]

In your opinion, what point would that be? Once the decision to stop production is final they'll stop producing the long-lead-items first, then step by step the other bits and parts. Machinery will be sold or scrapped, personnel will be assigned to other jobs or companies, as long as providing spare parts is not affected. I don't know what the F-22's ramp-up costs were, bloody expensive is my guess.
It would be very, very expensive to resume production again.

Im not much less cognizant as per the costs of initiating production of the F22 again any more than you are. And I have lingering suspicions that the entire production process would be made to stop and critical machinery sold and scrapped with the means to produce the F-22 lost. I have written in my preceding post that this might be a temporary measure to control costs. I would like to add now that Sec Gate`s decision looks prudent vis-a-vis a none existential threat currently. However, this might change in the near future.

Nevertheless, older planes would need replacements and there are indeed a lot of them. I doubt the USAF would dispense with a good mix of air superiority planes and multi role planes and opt to operate just F-35s.

Also, the F-22s are very expensive to begin with. And I believe that the US, more than anyone else, could ramp up and restart production if they want.

[SpudmanWP]

In your opinion, what point would that be? Once the decision to stop production is final they'll stop producing the long-lead-items first, then step by step the other bits and parts. Machinery will be sold or scrapped, personnel will be assigned to other jobs or companies, as long as providing spare parts is not affected. I don't know what the F-22's ramp-up costs were, bloody expensive is my guess.
It would be very, very expensive to resume production again.



Then why not buy F-35 anyway?

Superior F-22 kinematics.

The question was, "what would a low-cost F-22 look like".

This would also qualify as an export F-22 since all F-35 components are exportable.

[jaffo4011]

the us could always buy typhoons for its air defence and f35's for its ground attack duties...im sure that eurofighter would let them take a stake or maybe become a full partner.....everyones a winner,and the u.s gets a first class air superiority fighter on the cheap.....

after all we've done it with the harrier and hawk and in sure that the relevant technology codes could eventually,after negotiation,be passed to the u.s to allow them to modify/maintain some of the sensitive technology contained within the typhoon..........

[SpudmanWP]

Oh please.... a F-35 would smack a EF.

[jaffo4011]

Oh please.... a F-35 would smack a EF.

now i believe that the f35 is going to be a fantastic dual role aircraft,but i think its already generally accepted that as a pure interceptor platform/package the typhoon excells........that was my point,i wasnt attempting to dismiss the f35 in that respect but it fall somewhat behind the f22 and tiffie in the a2a role.im sure that usaf fighter crews would be a little disappointed to be making do with the f35 after experiencing the performance of the superb f22 and late model f15's

having said that,as and when it eventually reaches production it will be great to see it up against the best at red flag.......perhaps then ill have to eat my words?

[SpudmanWP]

....perhaps then ill have to eat my words?What sause would you like with those? :D

[gf0012-aust]

Laws can be changed. It is indeed an option. The US government just doesn't seem to keen on it.


It's not just the Executive of the US Govt - it's Congress and State Dept

eg In 2004 I attended a Defence Conference where Richard Armitage stood up in front of us and stated clearly that if Australia wanted the F-22 then he could see no objections from the US Govt. It was that comment that set the hares running as every man and his dog took it as an opportunity.

Within 4 months Armitage had "lost" his job and been moved on.

Thats why some australian observers still carry on about the F-22 because they assume that because people with authority like Armitage made a comment, that the only reason for us not taking up the offer was due to some internal conspiracy etc....

It's a constant source of frustration as all the loonies have grabbed bits of other information and behaviour and assume that the very people who do the warfighting have traversed to the "dark side" and have not been thinking about national defence issues etc..... unbelieveable, but the lesson is never argue with an idiot because being argumentative and illogical is the one thing that they are better at than you. :)

[rjmaz1]

Superior F-22 kinematics.
The F-22 has inferior kinematics in the current role required of the USAF.

Endurance and range is significantly lower in the F-22.

Maybe they will finally put 6 internal AMRAAMs or 12 of those new smaller AAMs(can't remember the name) and add a supercruse capability to the F-35?Or they'll just say that the F-35 already has both capabilities and that the F-35 has already gone supersonic with dry thrust :p

[backlash92]

The F-22 has inferior kinematics in the current role required of the USAF.

Endurance and range is significantly lower in the F-22.

Or they'll just say that the F-35 already has both capabilities and that the F-35 has already gone supersonic with dry thrust :p


can you add a link for the information on the inferior kinematics?

[StevoJH]

Oh please.... a F-35 would smack a EF.

In the Eurofighter thread is a post showing a quote from the head of the RAF. It says that the Typhoons will be used for Air Defense and Air Superiority and the F35's will be used for SEAD missions.

[Feanor]

The Typhoon is a late 4th gen. The F-35 is an early 5th gen. It will be superior by an order of magnitude. Just to review a few little details, the F-35 is a VLO platform, with mature AESA, and excellent IRST. The Typhoon is behind in all 3.

[Firn]

Maybe this is a blessing in disguise - but it is still a bit too early to give a definate answer. Time will tell.

[Abraham Gubler]

In the Eurofighter thread is a post showing a quote from the head of the RAF. It says that the Typhoons will be used for Air Defense and Air Superiority and the F35's will be used for SEAD missions.

That doesn't mean the Tiffie will be better than the F-35 in air-to-air. Rather it means that Tiffie in ATA and the F-35 in strike will provide a greater return for the RAF than vice versa. The Tiffie has to be used for something, they aren't going to be thrown away when the F-35 enters service.

[Firn]

That doesn't mean the Tiffie will be better than the F-35 in air-to-air. Rather it means that Tiffie in ATA and the F-35 in strike will provide a greater return for the RAF than vice versa. The Tiffie has to be used for something, they aren't going to be thrown away when the F-35 enters service.

Agreed. While there are ATA thread scenarios where the EF seems to be superior I would tend to say that the overall advantage lies with the F-35.

[Abraham Gubler]

Maybe this is a blessing in disguise - but it is still a bit too early to give a definate answer. Time will tell.

Since 2005 the decision has been to end F-22 production at 183 (+4 supplementals) by 2011. By 2011 there will be 7.5 times more Americans working directly on the F-35 than the F-22 (82,000 vs 11,000) and producing 32 F-35s a year and well on the way to ramping up to full rate 230 a year. There is no fighter gap.

[Abraham Gubler]

While there are ATA thread scenarios where the EF seems to be superior I would tend to say that the overall advantage lies with the F-35.

Which are? The F-35 will be superior across the range of possible ATA engagements. Except maybe gun ammo only, scramble to engage an attacker right above the air base. Which isn't really a valid scenario in the modern world.

[F-15 Eagle]

The F-22 has inferior kinematics in the current role required of the USAF.

Endurance and range is significantly lower in the F-22.

Or they'll just say that the F-35 already has both capabilities and that the F-35 has already gone supersonic with dry thrust :p

Yeah they can do that too I guess.....

[HK_Thoughtful]

I may have overlooked this in previous threads, but would the f-35 inability to supercruise or TVC negatively influence the planes ability to conduct A2A? While I understand that supercruise is relatively insignificant in WVR scenarios and the utility of TVC is debatable in both WVR and BVR situations, it seems as if there is too much emphasis on the f-35s stealth, even going as far as lacking a gun in the B & C varients.

[Bonza]

I may have overlooked this in previous threads, but would the f-35 inability to supercruise or TVC negatively influence the planes ability to conduct A2A? While I understand that supercruise is relatively insignificant in WVR scenarios and the utility of TVC is debatable in both WVR and BVR situations, it seems as if there is too much emphasis on the f-35s stealth, even going as far as lacking a gun in the B & C varients.

Not really. The F-35 will still be able to accelerate to supersonic speeds for weapon release. Despite "supercruise" abilities, aircraft that can do so do not spend much of their time at supersonic speeds, as supercruising or not, this still burns through fuel very quickly. You should be able to find some information somewhere on range reduction suffered by an F-22 supercruising for long periods.

TVC is not very relevant to the F-35's air to air capability. Going purely by platform comparison (and doing this is fraught with peril, see next paragraph), a combination of amazing situational awareness available to the pilot (far superior to even the F-22) and high off-boresight missiles with lock-on-after-launch capability will trump any perceived advantage conferred by thrust vectoring, every time.

More relevant than all that though is the importance of understanding that winning battles (including achieving air superiority) is chiefly determined not by platform specs, but by battlespace management and achieving synergies between warfighting systems.

My opinion, anyway. Your mileage may vary. :)

[Feanor]

Bonza hit the nail on the head.

By the way, Bonza, I notice you're a new member here. Please do take the time to introduce yourself in the Intros and Off-Topic forum, and to read the rules. Your first post was intelligent and well written, I look forward to reading more from you. :)

[Bonza]

Thanks for the kind words mate :)

On the whole I think it's best for the F-22 production line to take a bow and call it a day. Granted the aircraft is an amazing piece of technology but if you could put a list of its capabilities and that of the F-35 next to a list of the USAF's requirements, the decision makes a lot of sense.

I admit I'm a recovering F-22 junkie but the more I read about the F-35, the more capable and fascinating an aircraft it becomes.

(just edited this so it wasn't a one line reply, didn't notice that rule before, heh)

[HK_Thoughtful]

Thanks for the quick reply Bonza. I understand that combat effectiveness can not be determined and is not merely the result of comparing individual assets, but the result of a combination of all avaliable capabilities or "synergies". But in the case of the F-35, I still wonder about the lack of an internal gun for the B & C varients.

On the issue about ending the F-22, adding another batch of 20 planes would probably provide further assurance about the dominance of U.S. airpower, but such assurance would simply result in further overkill. With the economic situation as it is, killing the F-22 is a rational and understandable move. Furthermore, the place vacated by the f-22 in the DOD budget could be used to fund the jumpstart of the f-35, as well as other acqusitions

[Bonza]

Thanks for the quick reply Bonza. I understand that combat effectiveness can not be determined and is not merely the result of comparing individual assets, but the result of a combination of all avaliable capabilities or "synergies". But in the case of the F-35, I still wonder about the lack of an internal gun for the B & C varients.

The thing is, the B and C variants still have a gun capability, just that it's provided by a podded gun rather than internal carriage. Granted there are disadvantages to an external pod but as this capability has been part of the program from the beginning (as far as I know) I think these disadvantages will have been measured and neutralized to the best of the manufacturer's ability.

[rjmaz1]

can you add a link for the information on the inferior kinematics?
Just check wikipedia

The combat radius is "greater than 590 miles" for the F-35 and only 410 miles for the F-22.

The F-35 has MORE internal fuel even though it is 70% the size and weight of the F-22. That paints a very interesting picture.

Even though the F-22 can cruise faster, the F-35 will have so much extra internal fuel that it can use afterburners for weapons release negating the speed advantage.

[backlash92]

Just check wikipedia

The combat radius is "greater than 590 miles" for the F-35 and only 410 miles for the F-22.

The F-35 has MORE internal fuel even though it is 70% the size and weight of the F-22. That paints a very interesting picture.

Even though the F-22 can cruise faster, the F-35 will have so much extra internal fuel that it can use afterburners for weapons release negating the speed advantage.

As i understand that wikipedia is a quick and easy resource i dont really think it can be trusted for its credibility as it is not updated reguraly

[Pingu]

I have always been a keen advocate of increased F-22 production. Based largely on the fact that it would provide a better balance of fighters and lower unit costs.

I always thought the "F-15 will do" argument was short sighted given that when all fully retired in 2025 timeframe, nothing will be in production (other than the F-35) to replace them. Granted, the F-35 provides a large increase in capability over the F-15 but the US's edge may be lost when relying largely on the F-35, especially in 2025.

However, it's good to see that the money will be diverted into a surge of very rapid initial F-35 production. Lowering initial unit costs of the F-35 is paramount and this will give it the boost it needs. I also, don't see job loss as a concern, given that the F-35 is an LM product and therefore many employees could be transfered. The only issue would be geographically.

It is just a shame that the money had to be found at the cost of the F-22. Personally I feel that programs such as the V-22, EFV and some components of the excessive FCS program, should have taken a backseat to the F-22.

With regard to the RAF's use of F-35s and Typhoons, I believe that this is where a split tranche 3 schedule would come in handy. Once the F-35 is in RAF service any weeknesses or strengths found in the F-35 would help inform a decision on a final typhoon buy.

[F-15 Eagle]

Congress could still very well save the F-22 program by restoring funding for it. This has happened countless times in the past when the DOD tried to cancel a program but Congress restored it to save jobs in their sate. Take the V-22 Osprey for example, when Dick Chenny was secretory of defense in 1991 he tried to cancel the V-22 3 times I think it was but it was saved by Congress and 17 years later it is now flying combat operations in Iraq.

Maybe the F-22 will be saved by Congress another other programs like the new air force tanker and bomber.

[Salty Dog]

Congress could still very well save the F-22 program by restoring funding for it. This has happened countless times in the past when the DOD tried to cancel a program but Congress restored it to save jobs in their sate. Take the V-22 Osprey for example, when Dick Chenny was secretory of defense in 1991 he tried to cancel the V-22 3 times I think it was but it was saved by Congress and 17 years later it is now flying combat operations in Iraq.

Maybe the F-22 will be saved by Congress another other programs like the new air force tanker and bomber.

The V-22 is a unique case. The USMC had no follow-on air assault vehicle to the CH-46 Sea Knight which were still chugging around with Vietnam era bullet holes. So the V-22 had to work else there would be a serious gap in USMC air assault capability.

The F-22 has over 80 major suppliers supplying components and services. These companies are further distributed throughout the USA. While a stop in F-22 production will not put these companies out of business, it will produce employee layoffs vice them being re-distributed. No Congressman will not want to see any constituents loose their jobs. They will fight to keep F-22 production going.

[AegisFC]

The F-22 has over 80 major suppliers supplying components and services. These companies are further distributed throughout the USA. While a stop in F-22 production will not put these companies out of business, it will produce employee layoffs vice them being re-distributed. No Congressman will not want to see any constituents loose their jobs. They will fight to keep F-22 production going.

Yes there will be a fight to keep production open, but I'd be willing to be most of those suppliers are also involved in F-35 as well.

The current contract for 183 was known for a couple years now, all the suppliers have had plenty of time to draw up plans on what to do after Raptor production ends.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What will Mr Kopp do now???

Keep complaining.

[alexsa]

Keep complaining.


He appears to be living in hope at this stage. All the April news articles refered to in APA on the F-22 appear to relate to the hope for a reprieve and the 'anger' at the policy. In any case I would expect him to burst into volumous print.

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html#APA_NEWS

[The_Zergling]

Does anyone understand the rationale for having F-22 production-related facilities spread all over the United States? I'm not sure how the production process actually works, but this doesn't seem particularly efficient, and perhaps is part of the problem driving up costs? (shipping, for example)

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Does anyone understand the rationale for having F-22 production-related facilities spread all over the United States? I'm not sure how the production process actually works, but this doesn't seem particularly efficient, and perhaps is part of the problem driving up costs? (shipping, for example)

There are probably economies in having specialist production facilities that are already in place in say Seattle for other projects doing the work instead of either moving them or starting from scratch at a central point. Transport costs would be much less than the costs involved with either of those options. This is usually the case with most production lines, factories all over the country supply components to be assembled at the production line. There are significant economies involved in this practice.

Another major issue is politics. Jobs mean votes, and votes mean seats. By spreading the wealth you spread the votes. That is important to decision makers.

[Sea Toby]

The US military industrial complex is coast to coast. Just about every state is involved for political purposes. I doubt whether any nation has all of its military industrial complex in one state or city. If you know of one nation that has, please inform us.

[Moebius]

I would have to say Singapore.
I might be wrong, but I wanted to state a quick and easy answer, that on face value may be considered correct.

[OPSSG]

I would have to say Singapore.
I might be wrong, but I wanted to state a quick and easy answer, that on face value may be considered correct.

Off topic: Yes, but my whole country is in reality 1 mid-to-small sized island city of 4 million people (with some even smaller islands) with 1 listed defence contractor. Singapore's defence contractor is called Singapore Technologies (which has quite a few subsidiaries including some in various locations in the US). :D

[Moebius]

OPSSG

Now, why did you have to call me out on that one? That's why I said on face value. You weren't supposed look into the details and make me look bad.

Don't you see I'm trying to increase my post count. It's been a year since I registered here and I'm still below 20 posts.

p.s I do realize you're from Singapore, which gives you an unfair advantage.

[Falstaff]

There are probably economies in having specialist production facilities that are already in place in say Seattle for other projects doing the work instead of either moving them or starting from scratch at a central point. Transport costs would be much less than the costs involved with either of those options. This is usually the case with most production lines, factories all over the country supply components to be assembled at the production line.

That's right; in addition, the cost for a F-22 or parts of it simply are that high, shipping costs don't really matter. Imagine e.g. an engine or radar, what would a few 10,000$ matter? Esp. compared to the costs involved with moving workforce, building new facilities and so on for just 183 F-22's.

[Salty Dog]

The Lockheed Martin F-22 production line. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/3209316519/sizes/o/) <<photo link

The Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Ga., is home to the final assembly line for the F-22 Raptor, the world’s only 5th Generation fighter in full rate production. The Marietta workforce is joined by more than 25,000 Americans in 44 states making up the industrial base behind the most advanced fighter in history. More than 100 F-22 Raptors are flying at five bases across the nation and will be the nation’s air dominance vanguard for the next four decades.

[ROCK45]

Great picture Salty Dog, thanks

[F-15 Eagle]

Hey does anyone here know if the USAF is still planing on keeping 177 F-15Cs and 224 F-15Es until 2025?

[Wraith]

I may be wrong, but those don't look like F-22's, the rear section where the engine thrusters are looks to be double-jets like an F-15, not the single one on the F-22? It may just be the pic or my lack of knowledge though haha

[the road runner]

I may be wrong, but those don't look like F-22's, the rear section where the engine thrusters are looks to be double-jets like an F-15, not the single one on the F-22? It may just be the pic or my lack of knowledge though haha

The F-22 dose have 2 engines.

You may be confused with the single engine JSF(joint strike fighter)

Second that,great pic(of F-22 production line) Salty Dog

[Wraith]

I probably am lol. I'm not exactly experienced haha.

[Ananda]

Hey does anyone here know if the USAF is still planing on keeping 177 F-15Cs and 224 F-15Es until 2025?

Well secretary Gates only mentioned keeping F 15 E untill 2025 with congress..none as i'm awere on that speech mentioning on keeping F 15 C.

[F-15 Eagle]

Well secretary Gates only mentioned keeping F 15 E untill 2025 with congress..none as i'm awere on that speech mentioning on keeping F 15 C.

Well they will keep them until the F-35 is in service. No sense in replacing 450 F-15s with only 187 F-22s is there?

[DarthAmerica]

Well they will keep them until the F-35 is in service. No sense in replacing 450 F-15s with only 187 F-22s is there?

The F-15E is rated for 16000 flight hours and will remain into the later 2020's. The F-15C's will retire in 2025-2027. Look at slide 25:

http://www.florida-edc.org/Roundtable/MGen%20Davis%20F-35%20Sept08.pdf



-DA

[Marc 1]

Well they will keep them until the F-35 is in service. No sense in replacing 450 F-15s with only 187 F-22s is there?

Why not if they are 3 times more effective and much less likely to be shot down? One F16 is more effective than all the B-17's in US 8th Army Air Force during WWII. With precision guided munitions that F-16 can take out a specific target that even 1000 bomber raids during WWII missed with their saturation bombing.

[Sea Toby]

The Obama administration told Lockheed to end lobbying efforts for the F-22. or the administration will review other Lockheed products including the LCS. This should be the final nail.

[localhost127]

The Obama administration told Lockheed to end lobbying efforts for the F-22. or the administration will review other Lockheed products including the LCS. This should be the final nail.

bold move, but refreshing if indeed the case.

[Sea Toby]

Lockheed no longer lobbying for more F-22s. Link:
http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/1331093.html

[F-15 Eagle]

Why not if they are 3 times more effective and much less likely to be shot down? One F16 is more effective than all the B-17's in US 8th Army Air Force during WWII. With precision guided munitions that F-16 can take out a specific target that even 1000 bomber raids during WWII missed with their saturation bombing.

Can one F-22 be 3 places at once? No, I did not think so. There is no logic with a 3 for 1 replacement thats why they are accelerating production of the F-35 because 187 F-22s wont replace the F-15s, just a small portion of them.

Most of the F-15Cs and F-15Es will remain in service until 2025 when the last of them will be replaced by F-35s.

[SpudmanWP]

Can one F-22 be 3 places at once? No, I did not think so. There is no logic with a 3 for 1 replacement thats why they are accelerating production of the F-35 because 187 F-22s wont replace the F-15s, just a small portion of them.

Most of the F-15Cs and F-15Es will remain in service until 2025 when the last of them will be replaced by F-35s.

According to the attached chart (from the Sep 2008 JSF briefing), here are a few details:

Current numbers are ~1300
Drops to ~1260 in 2012
Up to ~1340 by 2014
Up to ~1360 by 2015
Up to ~1400 by mid 2023

F-X has a flying AC by 2026 (obvious wishing here since they have no idea what it will be)

Here are the Legacy AC Numbers.

----F15C&D:
1. slowly being phased out from now till 2012
2. holding steady till 2015
3. some phase out in the 2015 year
4. steady till 2024
5. gradual phaseout till all gone in 2027

----F-15E
1. steady till 2025
2. slight phaseout for two years
3. steady after 2027

----F-16
1. slight phaseout till 2015
2. accelerated phaseout till all gone by 2025

----A-10
1. steady till 2018
2. steady phaseout till gone by 2026

btw, I could not attach it as a jpg, the interface kept giving me an error but it was only 76k.

[swerve]

F-16 numbers drop sharply from 2016 onwards.

That chart assumes some more F-22s after the current orders, by the look of it, though not a huge number.

[Marc 1]

Can one F-22 be 3 places at once? No, I did not think so. There is no logic with a 3 for 1 replacement thats why they are accelerating production of the F-35 because 187 F-22s wont replace the F-15s, just a small portion of them.

Most of the F-15Cs and F-15Es will remain in service until 2025 when the last of them will be replaced by F-35s.

As I understand it you guys will have a few more than one - about 187 (minus the 2 that pranged). What I was suggesting is that whereas in the past you may have needed to deploy 3 squadrons, now you may only need one (thus being able to 'stretch' the numbers). The ability to supercruise means the F-22 can cover a larger piece of airspace for example. The F-35 will not be a dodo in the A2A role, so will require much less in the way of escorts.

By the way the difference between the democrats and the republicans is about the same as between labor and liberal in Australia - bugger all. A little bit of window dressing, a slightly different emphasis on one area of policy compared to another. Don't sweat it - it's not as though you guys just elected the Communist Party or the KKK.

[rjmaz1]

The ability to supercruise means the F-22 can cover a larger piece of airspace for example. The F-35 will not be a dodo in the A2A role, so will require much less in the way of escorts.
Actually the F-35 has significantly greater range than the F-22.

So if you have too few aircraft to cover a large area the F-35 will be able to protect more area than the F-22. Then you combine that with the fact the F-35 is significantly cheaper and the F-35 will probably be able to defend twice as much land mass for a set amount of money.

In the case of Australia where we have a large area and very few aircraft then the aircraft with the longer range has a bigger advantage. Range is so important that the F-35 is a better aircraft in the air to air role. If you however were covering a small area of land the F-22 could be zipping around continuously at Mach 1.6 and would be vastly superior to the F-35.

Top US brass has already stated that you need 6 F-22's for 10 F-35's.

Asked about the "optimal ratio" of F-35s to F-22s, Lindell said: "It depends on what we can afford but the studies and analysis show a mix with an increased number of F-22s". The argument rested mainly on the F-22's higher speed and air-to-air capability, translating into fewer aircraft needed to cover a given area: in air-to-air, six F-22s were worth ten F-35s.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4b1acff8-f05e-435a-a22f-7b32df4c9f6d

Luckily six F-22's are worth MORE than ten F-35's.

So the F-35 will provide more air to air capability per dollar.

[Marc 1]

Actually the F-35 has significantly greater range than the F-22.

Yep, aware of that - I was making the comparison with the F-15's that F-15 Eagle was talking about.

[F-15 Eagle]

So buying 1763 F-35s is about the same as buying 1050 F-22s when it comes to air to air capability. So you get the best bang for your buck with the F-35 which is why the pentagon decided to cap the F-22 production line at 187 aircraft and accelerate the F-35 instead.

[rjmaz1]

So buying 1763 F-35s is about the same as buying 1050 F-22s when it comes to air to air capability. So you get the best bang for your buck with the F-35 which is why the pentagon decided to cap the F-22 production line at 187 aircraft and accelerate the F-35 instead.
Yes.

Well the 6 F-22 for 10 F-35's would be a number pulled out of thin air based on a typical air to air mission coverage covering an average area.

If the mission required a larger than average area to be patrolled the longer range of the F-35 may mean that you need 8 F-22's for every 10 F-35's. Alternatively if the area being covered is quite small the F-22's can now supercruise everywhere giving it a bigger advantage meaning 4 F-22's could replace 10 F-35's. What they did to get the magic number of 6 F-22's doing the job of 10 F-35's is anyones guess.

The most imprtant thing here is that comparison is only in the air to air role. The F-35 is slightly better bang for buck as you require more of them but their cheaper cost makes them cheaper for the same capability.

If you look at the close air support role, you'd need 10+ F-22's to perform the role of a single F-35. The F-22 lacks the standoff range with its sensors and has worse situational awareness. So in this role the F-35 offers more capability at a fraction of the cost.

So on average the F-22 is a huge waste of money.

[Salty Dog]

Japan is keen on acquiring the F-22. Some noise is being generated in Washington to lift the export ban. An export version of the F-22 most likely will cost considerably more. See the full article below.

Cost of F-22 fighter for Japan as much as $250 mln (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0530055420090605?rpc=44&sp=true)

[Musashi_kenshin]

Japan is keen on acquiring the F-22. Some noise is being generated in Washington to lift the export ban. An export version of the F-22 most likely will cost considerably more. See the full
article below.

Cost of F-22 fighter for Japan as much as $250 mln

If that's the likely price then I'm not sure how many Japan could afford to buy with the budget deficit as it is.

Moreover, it needs to start the process of replacing some of its inventory now. Unless the White House makes it clear soon that it will get the export ban lifted and sell an "export version" to Japan, I think Japan will have to order at least a few squadrons of alternative aircraft to keep its fleet viable. It won't keep putting off the replacements year after year in the hope the USA will change its mind.