Another dozen F-22 Raptors

[Scorpion82]

Congress approved the acquisition of another 12 F-22s for the USAF using funds from the Energy Department cleanups at nuclear weapons sites. It was a 31:30 voices decision and 369 mln $ has been approved for advanced procurment of long lead items. The contract will supposley be valued at 2.8 bln $.

F-22 Funds Approved in Wee-Hours Vote - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4144686&c=AME&s=AIR)

[luca28]

House Committee votes to include $369 million for the advance procurement of 12 F-22A’s

defpro.com | Surprise, surprise! The House Armed Services Committee yesterday morning voted to include $369 million in extra funding to the Pentagon's 2010 budget for the advance procurement of 12 F-22A fighter jets. With an extremely close vote of 31 to 30, the House committee chose to increase the Raptor inventory and, thus, to ensure continued production of the stealth fleet beyond 187 aircraft. The $369 million is just the financial base for the procurement of items and materials needed for one dozen aircraft, which is now expected to be authorized in Fiscal 2011.

This move was somewhat unexpected, since Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed phasing out production of the US Air Force's most expensive fighter, the Lockheed Martin-built F-22 Raptor, by fiscal year 2011. Gates believes the Air Force only needs 187 F-22 fighters. “We will end production of the F-22 fighter at 187 – representing 183 planes plus four recommended for inclusion in the FY 2009 supplemental,” he said in early April, and observers thought the Raptor was dead. Gates proposed, in the 2010 Defense Department budget, to boost the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) instead.

The committee proposal, which now will have to wind its way through the House and Senate, is sure to come under scrutiny from the White House. Both Gates and President Obama do not want funding for a new fighter in the 2010 budget. The additional hundreds of millions of dollars will go against plans to rebalance the US military's spending.

One lawmaker told The Wall Street Journal that 187 jets is "frighteningly low". Some lawmakers wanted to commit to purchasing 12 more F-22 jets, but others in the group thought that option would be too expensive. The new funding is, in effect, a down payment on 12 additional jets to be bought in fiscal year 2011.

The 199 fighters still dips well below the 381 F-22s that the Air Force has always claimed it needs, and far short, even, of the 243 fighters set as the new military requirement by the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz.

In a statement, Lockheed said it "remains confident that the Congressional review process will lead to a healthy and full examination of budgetary and economic impacts, strategy, force structure and threats."

It added that, as the Pentagon's largest contractor, Lockheed "will continue to support our customers and work to deliver affordable solutions that meet their strategic and operational needs."

Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com (http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/335/)

[Sea Toby]

Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com (http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/335/)

This is a committee vote, by no means is this a vote on the floor of the House, much less the Senate, or of any joint bill. Don't expect this to go much further.....

This happened last year as well, and no new aircraft were ordered. In fact last year some would have been bought if the new administration had decided to buy. Since the new administration didn't want anymore, the program was assumed dead...

Since the House and Senate never ever agree, the bill which will either buy or kill the program will be the joint bill come near the end of the year, most likely in December.....

With baseball terms, a bunt has been laid down. We still don't know whether the hitter is safe at first base yet.... By no means has the hitter hit a home run or cross home plate.....

He will have reached first base if the full house votes for the Raptors. He will have reached second base if the full senate votes for the Raptors. He will reach third base if this is included in the house-senate conference bill. He will reach home plate when that bill passes both houses again......

[swerve]

...
With baseball terms, a bunt has been laid down. We still don't know whether the hitter is safe at first base yet.... By no means has the hitter hit a home run or cross home plate......
A bit US-centric for an international forum.

[luca28]

A bit US-centric for an international forum.
However, good to understand.

[F-15 Eagle]

I hope those 12 raptors are funded 187 is not enough.

[StevoJH]

However, good to understand.

Only if you know baseball terminology, which people like myself, don't.

Soccer/Football, Rugby (both union and league) and Cricket all the way.

So basically a subcommittee of the US congress has said they want them to be built, but for them to override gates they need votes of the full houses of both congress and the senate?

[F35Owns]

Only if you know baseball terminology, which people like myself, don't.

Soccer/Football, Rugby (both union and league) and Cricket all the way.

So basically a subcommittee of the US congress has said they want them to be built, but for them to override gates they need votes of the full houses of both congress and the senate?

Great Q. Long story, short...yes, hey are going to build them. The defense sub committee basically, paid "up front" for the building of 12 more fighter. Now, they didn't pay for all of it, just enough to pay for the parts to the F-22.

Yeah, they do have the power to go behind Mr. Gates and do this. Their thinking is, if we pay for the parts, they will have no option but to build the planes when they finish building the remain fighters. They are up to 141 of the 187. So, you won't see the 12 into service until 2013. It gives the congress enough time to decide if they will build more after that.....

Nice strategy if you ask me.

[Davyd]

I don't understand how quickly politicos can get short sighted once they get to the Hill. I mean, how can these people who so easily wave their pens and send thousands troops and materiel to various sites across the globe not do the same for those forces spread so thin? How can they see the various other countries' building up their respective forces with more and more modern equipment and fail to do so for their own? They sit and complain about the forces and the age of the equipment but won't do a thing about it. I'm not saying there should've been or should be another arms race, but if the suits and top brass would've kept up long ago there wouldn't be such trouble now. That and if they would stop this nonsense of "policing" the globe. Less than 200 F-22s? Geez, a good two front skirmish could dwindle that number rapidly. It's not like they're invincible or something.

[Bonza]

I don't understand how quickly politicos can get short sighted once they get to the Hill. I mean, how can these people who so easily wave their pens and send thousands troops and materiel to various sites across the globe not do the same for those forces spread so thin? How can they see the various other countries' building up their respective forces with more and more modern equipment and fail to do so for their own? They sit and complain about the forces and the age of the equipment but won't do a thing about it. I'm not saying there should've been or should be another arms race, but if the suits and top brass would've kept up long ago there wouldn't be such trouble now. That and if they would stop this nonsense of "policing" the globe. Less than 200 F-22s? Geez, a good two front skirmish could dwindle that number rapidly. It's not like they're invincible or something.


It's ironic that you advocate modernizing USAF equipment when F-22 production was shut down in order to put more funds into the F-35 program, an aircraft that is much, much more modern (and thus in many ways more capable) than the F-22. Not trying to have a dig at you, just saying.

[Davyd]

I'm not advocating modernization through procurement of more F-22s. I'm advocating air superiority through the procurement of more F-22s. Or has the Air Force or Pentagon likes to now term it to make themselves sleep better at nights while getting less and less fighters, "air dominance". As far as the 'F-35' goes, my feelings on single engine fighters (ducted fans not included) is well documented; that and the fact that the program (if at this point it actually makes it to FSD and front line service) is lagging so far behind who's to say how advanced the plane will be by the time it's fielded? While it's great to actually get a NEW fighter, it remains to be seen how it will fare with its' peers.

But i guess it's not to worry about age of the fighter side of the house. After all, they only average 19 years approx. It's the strategic side that needs youth more pressingly.

[Bonza]

I'm not advocating modernization through procurement of more F-22s. I'm advocating air superiority through the procurement of more F-22s. Or has the Air Force or Pentagon likes to now term it to make themselves sleep better at nights while getting less and less fighters, "air dominance". As far as the 'F-35' goes, my feelings on single engine fighters (ducted fans not included) is well documented; that and the fact that the program (if at this point it actually makes it to FSD and front line service) is lagging so far behind who's to say how advanced the plane will be by the time it's fielded? While it's great to actually get a NEW fighter, it remains to be seen how it will fare with its' peers.

But i guess it's not to worry about age of the fighter side of the house. After all, they only average 19 years approx. It's the strategic side that needs youth more pressingly.


What exactly are your feelings on single engine fighters?

I just don't see the purchase of another dozen Raptors as having much impact on your nation's ability to achieve air superiority. Something it can already do, and do better than any other nation on earth.

[Davyd]

What exactly are your feelings on single engine fighters?
I'm just like so many of those that feel the NEED for combat aircraft (and most other aircraft for that matter) to have dual engines. When one fails, then what? Glide? In today and the future, we build more and more designs that are inherently unstable or heavy and i'd just prefer to not go the route of one power source. It goes back to some old joke i had heard about a snotty Phantom pilot escorting a BUFF: the Phantom pilot was buzzin' the BUFF rolling and looping about, generally showing his ass. So the Phantom pilot gauded the BUFF pilot into doing something and they did - fly with two engines out.
And as far as the rest of that goes; firstly i agree, i don't see what the purchase of a dozen more F-22s will do. Which is why i want more. Somewhere in the neighborhood of the close to 400 they originally wanted (actually, replacing F-15s one for one would be ideal, but we all know THAT will never happen - probably keep F-15s around until they are 60 years old too). And sure, we can achieve air superiority. Against a force a tier or two below ours. What if it was an equal? Someone that could outnumber us in the air, with advanced SAMs. Or since we are so into helping every other nation or policing the globe, how would we plan on doing this on two or three fronts? With training and attrition still bound to go on? As i said before - the politicians really need a hard slap to let them realize this thing is NOT indestructible and NOT even invisible like they believe it is (they must, since they think we can get by with so little of them). I'll bet it's good and close, but no craft has those sure fire capabilities.
But also, how do we know we can achieve superiority with this thing? We haven't even seen it used in anger yet, and have only a handful of exercises to compare it on.

[Aussie Digger]

I'm just like so many of those that feel the NEED for combat aircraft (and most other aircraft for that matter) to have dual engines. When one fails, then what? Glide? In today and the future, we build more and more designs that are inherently unstable or heavy and i'd just prefer to not go the route of one power source. It goes back to some old joke i had heard about a snotty Phantom pilot escorting a BUFF: the Phantom pilot was buzzin' the BUFF rolling and looping about, generally showing his ass. So the Phantom pilot gauded the BUFF pilot into doing something and they did - fly with two engines out.
And as far as the rest of that goes; firstly i agree, i don't see what the purchase of a dozen more F-22s will do. Which is why i want more. Somewhere in the neighborhood of the close to 400 they originally wanted (actually, replacing F-15s one for one would be ideal, but we all know THAT will never happen - probably keep F-15s around until they are 60 years old too). And sure, we can achieve air superiority. Against a force a tier or two below ours. What if it was an equal? Someone that could outnumber us in the air, with advanced SAMs. Or since we are so into helping every other nation or policing the globe, how would we plan on doing this on two or three fronts? With training and attrition still bound to go on? As i said before - the politicians really need a hard slap to let them realize this thing is NOT indestructible and NOT even invisible like they believe it is (they must, since they think we can get by with so little of them). I'll bet it's good and close, but no craft has those sure fire capabilities.
But also, how do we know we can achieve superiority with this thing? We haven't even seen it used in anger yet, and have only a handful of exercises to compare it on.

There is no Air force on Earth, extant or projected that is as capable as the USAF.

There are VERY few forces as capable as the USN and USMC. US airpower is a dominant force within world military capabilities, today.

The USAF has what it needs from F-22 in 7x operational Squadrons. More is just a case of "toys for the boys". What USAF needs are genuine replacements for it's large F-16/F-16 fleets and F-22 will never fill that role on a cost basis alone.

Acquisition cost would come down if hundreds more were bought, but it is support costs which kill the F-22 and is the EXACT reason why F-35 is specifically being designed with cost reduction as a primary concern.

As for the "2 engine" requirement, USAF F-16's have the best safety record of any current USAF aircraft...

[Aussie Digger]

I hope those 12 raptors are funded 187 is not enough.

Not enough for what?

[Crusader2000]

Congress approved the acquisition of another 12 F-22s for the USAF using funds from the Energy Department cleanups at nuclear weapons sites. It was a 31:30 voices decision and 369 mln $ has been approved for advanced procurment of long lead items. The contract will supposley be valued at 2.8 bln $.

F-22 Funds Approved in Wee-Hours Vote - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4144686&c=AME&s=AIR)


Yet, President Obama has threaten to "Veto" any bill that includes more "F-22's"............Plus,Senators Carl Levin (D) and John McCain (R) both leaders of the Senate Defense Committee are against the plan...........along with Defense Secretary Gates.


In short I wouldn't could my chickens yet.:duel

[Davyd]

There is no Air force on Earth, extant or projected that is as capable as the USAF.

There are VERY few forces as capable as the USN and USMC. US airpower is a dominant force within world military capabilities, today.
Well, i'm sorry then. Didn't mean to set anyone off on it. After hearing, seeing, reading and analysing multiple takes on the state of the USAF versus a few other major notable forces this just isn't the way i see it. And it really feels like others don't see it this way either. I more or less look at it like this: 20 years ago the USs' major front line ASF was the F-15. And at the time it was considered the global yardstick by which to measure other ASFs. Then they had about 500 of them, and no major conflicts anywhere to send them. That was 20 years ago. Now, they are that much older. There are only about 300 of them (we're not counting the E model here). And other forces have had the time to catch up technologically while they're still using those same F-15s. Now, i grant that they've had their various upgrades. But the design is still approaching 40 years on. And my main question relating to that (and why i feel the need for more F-22s) is: If there were no projected conflicts when the US felt the need to build 700 of them back in the 70s, why is that now that the US is actually engaged in conflicts the need is only for a fraction of that number of its replacement? On top of all that, other countries forces have caught up (and in the F-15s sake, most feel past).
As for the "2 engine" requirement, USAF F-16's have the best safety record of any current USAF aircraft
Firstly, i thought that title belonged to the KC-10. Secondly, i wouldn't believe it anyway - i have seen so many comics, heard so many degrading comments on it (why is one of its nicknames The Lawn Dart?) to make me think otherwise. And off all of that, i would still consider the number skewed for the simple fact that there are up to 1100 in the inventory. A few losses to that number would make that ratio look better than most others anyway (1 crash per 1100 F-16s = 1:1100, 1 crash per 60 F-117s = 1:60).

[Marc 1]

:Ex-F-22 engineer to sue Lockheed for stealth design (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/30/329025/ex-f-22-engineer-to-sue-lockheed-for-stealth-design.html)

And there are still people out there waving the flag and saying Australia should buy these things...:rolleyes:

[fretburner]

The same Senators who approved 7 Raptors are also pitching for an export variant, for possibly Japan and other allies.

[F-15 Eagle]

Not enough for what?

Not enough to replace all the F-15s. Not enough to achieve air superiority on just 126 combat cable F-22s out of 187.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Not enough to replace all the F-15s. Not enough to achieve air superiority on just 126 combat cable F-22s out of 187.

Why not? A wing of F-22A's supporting five or six wings of F-35A's equipped with JDRAAM, whatever tanker they decide to buy and the best C5ISTAR capability on the planet is going to be more than enough to achieve air superiority in virtually any geographical location (where the basing is available) against any foe. Remember all those F-15C's were produced during a cold war footing, times have changed. Why does the USAF of 2020 have to be a technologically upgraded version of the USAF of 1980 when the world it operates in is massively different? Operational requirements driven by contemporary technology and the strategic landscape should determine your force structure and platform choice, not the other way round.

Look i agree 204 isn't a heap of platforms, and more would be nice. But a 1 for 1 replacement for the F-15 fleet seems extremely excessive to me.

[gf0012-aust]

The same Senators who approved 7 Raptors are also pitching for an export variant, for possibly Japan and other allies.

They're congressmen, and they have as much chance of getting an export variant of the F-22 as I have of building an aegis DDG in my backyard. :)

[F35Owns]

The same Senators who approved 7 Raptors are also pitching for an export variant, for possibly Japan and other allies.

Yeah, and I am Tom Brady, from the New England Patriots. Last week I teleported to Mars. And next week and Me, Ahmadinejad, and Netanyahu are going to a BBQ together...we're BFF's.

[Crusader2000]

They're congressmen, and they have as much chance of getting an export variant of the F-22 as I have of building an aegis DDG in my backyard. :)

Its worth noting that any export model of the F-22 wouldn't be available for years. So, what happens when Lockheed Martin runs out of USAF Orders??? Is Japan going to pay to keep the production line open??? Especially, considering the proposed Japanese F-22 is already in the region of 250-290 Million per copy!

[gf0012-aust]

Its worth noting that any export model of the F-22 wouldn't be available for years. So, what happens when Lockheed Martin runs out of USAF Orders??? Is Japan going to pay to keep the production line open??? Especially, considering the proposed Japanese F-22 is already in the region of 250-290 Million per copy!

I'm not going to re-type all my comments, so I am going to cardinal sin and beg Webs indulgence and link externally to make my own life easier. This is a complex issue, and probably beyond this forum.

I've written on this a number of times, and after 4 years it is slowly coming out how and why I was "right"

The Japanese aren't getting an export F-22, some of the reasons are obvious.

Warplanes: The F-22 Mud Fighter (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20090704/page3.aspx)

[Bonza]

I'm not going to re-type all my comments, so I am going to cardinal sin and beg Webs indulgence and link externally to make my own life easier. This is a complex issue, and probably beyond this forum.

I've written on this a number of times, and after 4 years it is slowly coming out how and why I was "right"

The Japanese aren't getting an export F-22, some of the reasons are obvious.

Warplanes: The F-22 Mud Fighter (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20090704/page3.aspx)

Cheers for the link GF, very interesting. I didn't realise the development/through-life issues for the F-22 were so far reaching! Certainly puts things in perspective...

[gf0012-aust]

Cheers for the link GF, very interesting. I didn't realise the development/through-life issues for the F-22 were so far reaching! Certainly puts things in perspective...

It's also my last comment on this as I had a US colleague contact me earlier today and suggest that I should not contribute anymore to the debate.

[Salty Dog]

[COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana]Firstly, i thought that title belonged to the KC-10. Secondly, i wouldn't believe it anyway - i have seen so many comics, heard so many degrading comments on it (why is one of its nicknames The Lawn Dart?) to make me think otherwise. And off all of that, i would still consider the number skewed for the simple fact that there are up to 1100 in the inventory. A few losses to that number would make that ratio look better than most others anyway (1 crash per 1100 F-16s = 1:1100, 1 crash per 60 F-117s = 1:60).

To be accurate you must consider accident rate per number of flight hours, not per numbers of aircraft.

[fretburner]

The Japanese aren't getting an export F-22, some of the reasons are obvious.

Warplanes: The F-22 Mud Fighter (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20090704/page3.aspx)

That is just so sad (after reading the link).

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I'm not going to re-type all my comments, so I am going to cardinal sin and beg Webs indulgence and link externally to make my own life easier. This is a complex issue, and probably beyond this forum.

I've written on this a number of times, and after 4 years it is slowly coming out how and why I was "right"

The Japanese aren't getting an export F-22, some of the reasons are obvious.

Warplanes: The F-22 Mud Fighter (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20090704/page3.aspx)

Wow, that was enlightening... I didn't have a clue the F-22A had through life sustainability issues of that magnitude. Geesch, that fills in a few blanks. LM clearly screwed the pooch, lets all be thankful that the F-35 is in a much healthier position. You would expect that on the 3rd generation jet platform LM would have thought of architecture obsolescence issues, although that form of technology has been moving awfully quickly lately. Why haven't we seen similar issues on legacy platforms?

[Sea Toby]

Obama promises his first veto over the F-22 if any aircraft are purchased in this year's defense appropriations bill....Link:
Senate heads toward vote on F-22s - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senate-heads-toward-vote-on-apf-3062542287.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=)

[EGB2494]

Obama has said that but one thing is true about our new President. He goes along with the political wind. Right now, he is trying to rally support for his health care package. He needs all of the help he can get.

I think there is a good chance he DOESN'T veto it because the people who want more F-22's are going to push the JOBS aspect of this. Obama says he is all about jobs. He will not want to appear to veto something that will keep people working. I think his veto threat was an idle one. He also will need all of the Congressional support he can get to do his health care thing.

[F-15 Eagle]

Obama has said that but one thing is true about our new President. He goes along with the political wind. Right now, he is trying to rally support for his health care package. He needs all of the help he can get.

I think there is a good chance he DOESN'T veto it because the people who want more F-22's are going to push the JOBS aspect of this. Obama says he is all about jobs. He will not want to appear to veto something that will keep people working. I think his veto threat was an idle one. He also will need all of the Congressional support he can get to do his health care thing.

The Senate already voted 58-40 to kill production of the F-22. So only 187 will be built and instead focus on the F-35. I don't agree on cutting defense for health care, typical liberal crap but I wont say much more.

Senate kills production of F-22 Raptor - Los Angeles Business from bizjournals: (http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2009/07/20/daily15.html)

[localhost127]

The Senate already voted 58-40 to kill production of the F-22. So only 187 will be built and instead focus on the F-35. I don't agree on cutting defense for health care, typical liberal crap but I wont say much more.

Senate kills production of F-22 Raptor - Los Angeles Business from bizjournals: (http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2009/07/20/daily15.html)

how much (in USD billions) more do you feel we should be spending on defense?

how does that benefit the country as a whole?

[F-15 Eagle]

how much (in USD billions) more do you feel we should be spending on defense?

how does that benefit the country as a whole?

I don't see how cutting the defense budget(weapons programs) will benefit the country as a whole ether. We have been down that road before.

As for how much we should spend well that just depends if it includes 20 more F-22s than that would be about 5 billion more.

[charles34]

Hey guys I am new to this board. I personally do like the f-22 raptor. Maybe someday we can get more, but we could use that money right now for things like cyber defense or f-35. I heard for every hour of flight the f-22 does it takes like 30 or so hours for maintenance. Again, I like the f-22 but maybe the money could go to other things we need right now.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Guys read GF's earlier post, everyone would love more F-22A's but LM screwed the pooch. Even the ones they have wont all be able to fulfill the air superiority role in 15 years. F-22A will be a black hole in terms of through life development, its a fundamentally flawed platform, its got little to do with partisan politics.

[Bonza]

Guys read GF's earlier post, everyone would love more F-22A's but LM screwed the pooch. Even the ones they have wont all be able to fulfill the air superiority role in 15 years. F-22A will be a black hole in terms of through life development, its a fundamentally flawed platform, its got little to do with partisan politics.

I second that. If you actually read the comments in the article GF posted, you'll gain a great deal of understanding as to the F-22's shortcomings.

[charles34]

Who is GF?

[mysterious]

And the final nail in the coffin becomes a reality. US Senate passes bill to abort funding for any more F-22 fighter jets:

BBC NEWS | Americas | US Senate halts F-22 jet funding (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162106.stm)

[Bonza]

Who is GF?

gf-0012-aust - you can find the link he posted on post #25 of this thread.

[localhost127]

gf-0012-aust - you can find the link he posted on post #25 of this thread.

and it's the discussion in the comments where the real info can be found

thanks, gf...

[latenlazy]

I think the F-22 may be done for now, but I don't think it's permanently finished, only just for the time being. Sooner or later the USAF will need an air superiority fighter to replace the aging F-15s, and it seems reasonably cheaper and easier to put back into production a plane that's already been through the testing and development stages and is for the most part already ready for production rather than design and develop an entirely new plane altogether. Though I'm not sure about this, it would appear the F-35 and the F-22 share a lot of major components, which would make restarting its production cheaper still. The maintenance problems can be figured out and fixed over time, if the F-22 does go back into production.

Or, I'm just being silly and overly hopeful.

[Marc 1]

I think the F-22 may be done for now, but I don't think it's permanently finished, only just for the time being. Sooner or later the USAF will need an air superiority fighter to replace the aging F-15s, and it seems reasonably cheaper and easier to put back into production a plane that's already been through the testing and development stages and is for the most part already ready for production rather than design and develop an entirely new plane altogether. Though I'm not sure about this, it would appear the F-35 and the F-22 share a lot of major components, which would make restarting its production cheaper still. The maintenance problems can be figured out and fixed over time, if the F-22 does go back into production.

Or, I'm just being silly and overly hopeful.

I think you'll find the F22 and F35 share bugger all. Even the engines are different. Software and hardware are different (at least 10-15 years younger in the F-35 and software is designed around an open architecture whereas the F22 uses largely outdated computers and software that must be custom designed.

The F-35 will be able to fill the air defence role very ably so it will replace the F-15's and 16's.

It is not simple to reopen a production line once production ceases. The equipment and even the building is reused for other purposes. Even if the US did decide to do this, the F22's avionics and systems would need to redesigned from scratch, and a rethinking of its radar absorbent coating that is proving to be so maintenance intensive now. If you are going to go to those lengths, you might as well design a new aircraft, not put back into production an airframe that has its design roots at least 20 years ago.

[winnyfield]

I don't see how cutting the defense budget(weapons programs) will benefit the country as a whole ether. We have been down that road before.
.

Defense budget has been increased. They just don't want the F-22.

It's a Democratic White House threatening a veto against a Democratic House & Senate.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think you'll find the F22 and F35 share bugger all. Even the engines are different. Software and hardware are different (at least 10-15 years younger in the F-35 and software is designed around an open architecture whereas the F22 uses largely outdated computers and software that must be custom designed.

AFAIk they do share T/R modules, at least that one thing. Not much else though.

The F-35 will be able to fill the air defence role very ably so it will replace the F-15's and 16's.

The F-16C is an excellent air defence asset, the USAF could have gained air superiority over Iraq and the Balkans without the F-15C, the F-16Ccan do it all. The only reason the F-16's were relegated to purely strike roles was the fact that they had F15C's anyway. F-15A's will be MORE than capable enough to gain air superiority over virtually any threat, and they have few squadrons of F-22A's to deploy if need be.

It is not simple to reopen a production line once production ceases. The equipment and even the building is reused for other purposes. Even if the US did decide to do this, the F22's avionics and systems would need to redesigned from scratch, and a rethinking of its radar absorbent coating that is proving to be so maintenance intensive now. If you are going to go to those lengths, you might as well design a new aircraft, not put back into production an airframe that has its design roots at least 20 years ago.

Even if they did reopen the production line it would mean another version of the F-22A (probably F-22B or C) and none of the through life upgrade's developed for the original batch would be applicable to the C version and vise versa. Therefore i don't think it will be likely, it just doesn't make financial seance. It may be likely that we see a long range, multi role version of the F-22A as an F-15E replacement (like the FB-22 concept), the F-15C "Golden Eagles" will likely be replaced by F-35A's or a sixth gen platform.

[latenlazy]

Even if they did reopen the production line it would mean another version of the F-22A (probably F-22B or C) and none of the through life upgrade's developed for the original batch would be applicable to the C version and vise versa. Therefore i don't think it will be likely, it just doesn't make financial seance. It may be likely that we see a long range, multi role version of the F-22A as an F-15E replacement (like the FB-22 concept), the F-15C "Golden Eagles" will likely be replaced by F-35A's or a sixth gen platform.
I would think that if they do reopen production they would have to upgrade the F-22 to a B variant anyway (given time lapse, the A variant would be due for an upgrade), and there could be a lot of room to share technology with the F-35, including the paint? (unless radar absorbent paint must be specific for different airframes to maintain stealth). After all, my understanding is that the F135 turbofan the F-35 uses was a derivative of the F119, and the F-22 would have probably had to upgrade its operating system to open source later on anyways.

Furthermore, though the F-15 may be able continue service, I question it and the F-35's readiness against competition from whatever China and Russia may be able to churn out in the next decade or so. Of course, conflict with Russia or China is unlikely, and these countries themselves may face the same cost issues the US has faced, but nonetheless the job of a military force isn't just to be prepared for present conflicts but future ones as well. If the US military suddenly sees a need for a better air superiority fighter (and I think sooner or later it would), it's probably much cheaper to put the F-22 back into production than to create an entirely new platform. Switching to a 6th generation option, whatever that may be, could end up being even more costly than reopening production, given that you'd have to reinvest money into R&D, then go through all the costs of turning up production. In that way, even if a return of the F-22 requires upgrades, I think it would make financial sense over an entirely new platform.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I would think that if they do reopen production they would have to upgrade the F-22 to a B variant anyway (given time lapse, the A variant would be due for an upgrade),

The problem with the F-22A is there are already several versions, and the oldest 60 use an outdated software architecture, and the rest don't use the same as the F-35. Therefore as spiral developments come to fruition the software has to be developed twice, which means billions of $$$ spent doing something extremely costly and complicated twice. If you have a second production run of F-22C's they will likely be built with contemporary open architecture like the F-35, so any software developed will have to be developed again for the F-22C. If they want to upgrade the F-22A's they will have to write the hideously complicated software three times. It will cost squillions and realistically wouldn't be feasible. You would effectively have to rip the guts out of the platforms avionics system, its a bloody nightmare.

and there could be a lot of room to share technology with the F-35, including the paint? (unless radar absorbent paint must be specific for different airframes to maintain stealth).

Again its a question of cost. If they had built the F-22A and the F-35 with comparable architecture, you could easily migrate systems and capabilities across. But now with 2 versions of the platform (3 if you include F-22C) the cost of adapting the technology would be prohibitive. There are some hardware components that can migrate pretty easily, as i said before the AN/APG-79 already uses the T/R modules developed for the AN/APG-80. As for the RAM, the F-22A and F-35 were designed with different RCS and maintenance requirements. Thus the F-35's RAM would likely not meet the F-22A's design requirements. Puss the cost again would be prohibitive (its more than the paint).

After all, my understanding is that the F135 turbofan the F-35 uses was a derivative of the F119,

Its based on the F-119, but they share virtually no parts and are optimized for different parts of the performance envelope, and they are different sizes. Thus I don't think there is much of an opportunity for crossover there. Its more than the difference between the GE F404 and F414.

and the F-22 would have probably had to upgrade its operating system to open source later on anyways.

That's the thing, the cost of spiral development will be huge considering the architecture constraints and different versions, its likely that only critical upgrades will be completed.

Furthermore, though the F-15 may be able continue service, I question it and the F-35's readiness against competition from whatever China and Russia may be able to churn out in the next decade or so.

Really? Why is that? The F-22A is miles ahead of any technology any other nation has ever deployed, so is the F-35. Personally i would be impressed if the Russians or especially the Chinese come up with something comparable to the F-35 and the produce it in numbers great enough to have a significant impact . Consider the simple fact that the US is on its 4th gen of manned VLO/LO platforms, the Russians and Chinese are currently at Zero.

Anyway the platform is only one element in the kill chain, and the massive lead the US holds in virtually every other element means that realistically an upgraded F-15C force could gain air superiority over a J-10B or Su-35BM equipped foe. Just from a C4ISTAR standpoint the USAF is a light year ahead of the Russians and further ahead of the Chinese.

Of course, conflict with Russia or China is unlikely, and these countries themselves may face the same cost issues the US has faced, but nonetheless the job of a military force isn't just to be prepared for present conflicts but future ones as well.

I absolutely agree with you. The counter insurgency and small conflict focus that has dominated US thinking is about to be surpassed by traditional peer competition, and high end war fighting capability will be at a premium again. The Jihadist war is winding down and a confrontation with Russia in eastern Europe and China in east Asia is winding up. The procurement decisions made now will have a significant effect on those confrontations over the next 20 years.


If the US military suddenly sees a need for a better air superiority fighter (and I think sooner or later it would), it's probably much cheaper to put the F-22 back into production than to create an entirely new platform.

But new platforms will be under development anyway, with manned/unmanned solutions already being designed. Why invest money in the F-22A which is already a through life development money put, creating another version will only exacerbate the problem.

Switching to a 6th generation option, whatever that may be, could end up being even more costly than reopening production, given that you'd have to reinvest money into R&D, then go through all the costs of turning up production. In that way, even if a return of the F-22 requires upgrades, I think it would make financial sense over an entirely new platform.

But 6th gen will be being worked on anyway, just as 5th gen was even as F-15C's were rolling off the production line. Thus if you are already working on a next gen platform, why not bring that forward rather than invest money in a previous gen platform that will just cost more and more money.

In any case if there is a need for more air superiority platforms to replace the F-15C it will make much more seance to just add more orders to the F-35A production line than the massive cost of re-opening the F-22A production line (re tooling the various production facilities alone would cost squillions). Then you will have 3 versions of the F-22A to support, that is a through life nightmare. The F-35A will be a formidable air superiority platform anyway, and given the comparative ease of upgrade it by that time will likely field advanced capabilities that the F-22A wont.

[latenlazy]

The problem with the F-22A is there are already several versions, and the oldest 60 use an outdated software architecture, and the rest don't use the same as the F-35. Therefore as spiral developments come to fruition the software has to be developed twice, which means billions of $$$ spent doing something extremely costly and complicated twice. If you have a second production run of F-22C's they will likely be built with contemporary open architecture like the F-35, so any software developed will have to be developed again for the F-22C. If they want to upgrade the F-22A's they will have to write the hideously complicated software three times. It will cost squillions and realistically wouldn't be feasible. You would effectively have to rip the guts out of the platforms avionics system, its a bloody nightmare.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to update the whole with one new architecture all at once? That way instead of encountering cost spirals twice you only have to spend all your money on one upgrade? Besides, if the F-22 were still in production, they would have had to face these cost issues anyways. It's inconcievable that the F-22, were it in production, would not be upgraded with new components and a new software as technology improved.


Again its a question of cost. If they had built the F-22A and the F-35 with comparable architecture, you could easily migrate systems and capabilities across. But now with 2 versions of the platform (3 if you include F-22C) the cost of adapting the technology would be prohibitive. There are some hardware components that can migrate pretty easily, as i said before the AN/APG-79 already uses the T/R modules developed for the AN/APG-80. As for the RAM, the F-22A and F-35 were designed with different RCS and maintenance requirements. Thus the F-35's RAM would likely not meet the F-22A's design requirements. Puss the cost again would be prohibitive (its more than the paint).

Couldn't they revise the design to share more components and software with the F-35 before moving it back into production? Also, the F-35 will probably have to get software upgrades at some point anyways. Wouldn't it cut cost if these upgrades happened simultaneously with an upgrade of the F-22's software? (of course, I'm making this sound a bit rosier than it probably is. Software wise I'm aware that some things will share a basic architectural design but the specifics will be vastly different, and it's different if the F-35 is open source and can be easily upgraded while as you pointed out the F-22's entire operating system would have to be replaced). Similarly, couldn't they either upgrade the F-35's RAM, or downgrade the F-22's?


Its based on the F-119, but they share virtually no parts and are optimized for different parts of the performance envelope, and they are different sizes. Thus I don't think there is much of an opportunity for crossover there. Its more than the difference between the GE F404 and F414.
Ahh, I see. There's no quick fix for the cost of putting the turbofan back into development then.


That's the thing, the cost of spiral development will be huge considering the architecture constraints and different versions, its likely that only critical upgrades will be completed.
I'm under the notion that had the F-22 remained in production these costs spirals would have cropped up anyways.


Really? Why is that? The F-22A is miles ahead of any technology any other nation has ever deployed, so is the F-35. Personally i would be impressed if the Russians or especially the Chinese come up with something comparable to the F-35 and the produce it in numbers great enough to have a significant impact . Consider the simple fact that the US is on its 4th gen of manned VLO/LO platforms, the Russians and Chinese are currently at Zero.
I tend to err on the side of caution when estimating what capabilities other countries may develop. Just because the US is vastly ahead doesn't mean either Russia nor China can't catch up. As the head of the pack the US has the burden of figuring out new innovations, while Russia and China can make do with copying old ones and observing what's already on the field to quicken their own developments. One example of how countries at the head of the technological curve have the burden of improving slower is exactly what you pointed out. The F-22 is indeed far more advanced than anything else on the field, but that level of advancement is inhibited by cost and feasibility, which essentially gives other countries time to catch up, at least in terms of what they're fielding if not in terms of what they're developing. I am especially wary of China, as they do hold a lot of US debt, but in any case there's no clear answer to this point. We'll see how well they do and if the F-35 is enough when we see exactly what these countries churn out in the next decade.

Anyway the platform is only one element in the kill chain, and the massive lead the US holds in virtually every other element means that realistically an upgraded F-15C force could gain air superiority over a J-10B or Su-35BM equipped foe. Just from a C4ISTAR standpoint the USAF is a light year ahead of the Russians and further ahead of the Chinese.

I agree that the platform is only one element, but the other elements to controlling an air space are much easier to upgrade and catch up on I think. With that in mind, I refer back to my previous point about the potential for these two countries to narrow the technology gap.

I absolutely agree with you. The counter insurgency and small conflict focus that has dominated US thinking is about to be surpassed by traditional peer competition, and high end war fighting capability will be at a premium again. The Jihadist war is winding down and a confrontation with Russia in eastern Europe and China in east Asia is winding up. The procurement decisions made now will have a significant effect on those confrontations over the next 20 years.

:cool:

But new platforms will be under development anyway, with manned/unmanned solutions already being designed. Why invest money in the F-22A which is already a through life development money put, creating another version will only exacerbate the problem.
I'd rather not get into the manned unmanned debate, and will leave the question of what exactly qualifies as 6th generation open. I merely postulate that the F-22 would be a viable alternative to developing an entirely new fighter if a new fighter is needed before a next generation fighter is ready. The US is staring down a massive budget deficit, and I get the feeling that R&D of military hardware will naturally slow, at least for the next 8 years or so. For the same reason why new F-22s were struck down (US debt and the lack of need for them in our foreseeable conflicts) I imagine a 6th gen platform's R&D being slowed down (hard to justify new technology if the current one works fine). Should the F-35 not be enough, assuming a government still intent on managing military procurement tightly, having something still ahead of the curve but not too new might seem a cheaper alternative to fielding something too advanced to justify the cost for.

But 6th gen will be being worked on anyway, just as 5th gen was even as F-15C's were rolling off the production line. Thus if you are already working on a next gen platform, why not bring that forward rather than invest money in a previous gen platform that will just cost more and more money.
Again, not sure on how much money will go into R&D of a 6th gen platform when what we have is advanced enough now that we can't even justify continuing production of the F-22. Granted it would be wise to bring forward new technology, but as you said it's a matter of cost. Would it be cheaper to spend money to bring a 6th gen platform upfront or to put into production an old fighter whose capabilities were once too far ahead but are just about what you need at the time? You've convinced me that putting the F-22 back into production would be very expensive, but I wonder the answer to the question, and right now that answer's up in the air.

However, what seems to be clear with the current end of the F-22 is that the military industrial complex no longer has a cold war to justify pushing the envelope of military technology like it did while the F-15 was in service. I find it an interesting irony that what's ended the F-22's production could slow down the R&D of a 6th generation platform in a way that might justify bringing the F-22 back.

In any case if there is a need for more air superiority platforms to replace the F-15C it will make much more seance to just add more orders to the F-35A production line than the massive cost of re-opening the F-22A production line (re tooling the various production facilities alone would cost squillions). Then you will have 3 versions of the F-22A to support, that is a through life nightmare. The F-35A will be a formidable air superiority platform anyway, and given the comparative ease of upgrade it by that time will likely field advanced capabilities that the F-22A wont.
Perhaps the primary difference of views then is that I suspect the F-35's capabilities won't be enough in the future, and the slowdown of military spending that helped doom the F-22 could also doom everything that was supposed to come after it and make conditions more reasonable for its return. Of course, you're right in saying the F-35 is a highly adaptable platform, but that adaptability is limited by what the airframe is designed to do. The F-35 was originally designed assuming a high/low mix with the F-22 occupying the high position. With the potential retirement of the F-15C (and the F-15C is quickly aging), the USAF will be left without a fighter to fill in that position. What will it do then?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Wouldn't it just be simpler to update the whole with one new architecture all at once? That way instead of encountering cost spirals twice you only have to spend all your money on one upgrade?

Updating the whole architecture virtually means rebuilding the platforms avionics system from scratch. In a platform that is already the most expensive fighter every made that would mean a significant increase in cost. The DoD is already bulking at the cost of the Raptor, there is no way in hell they are going to fork out billions of $$$ to basically rebuild the brand new fighters they already have. They are just going to live with a compromised platform.

Besides, if the F-22 were still in production, they would have had to face these cost issues anyways. It's inconcievable that the F-22, were it in production, would not be upgraded with new components and a new software as technology improved.

Yes but the more they build the more the additional cost multiplies. The fundamental logic is why keep building a platform that will cost you massive amounts in through life support and is already hideously expensive when you have a perfectly good, sound, capable and in some ways more advanced platform in production (F-35A).without any of these issues.

The F-22A will be a hole in the pocket of the USAAF throughout its life, why make the hole bigger?

Couldn't they revise the design to share more components and software with the F-35 before moving it back into production?

Sure but what happens with the 183 you already have? There is already a huge support infrastructure built for the platforms you have, but now your new production aircraft are different. Add to that the upgrades you have developed will not be easily adaptable to the different versions of your platform. Its just making your support and development issues worse and its more development cost to add to the already massive development bill. More cost, more support issues and more time. All that or just buy more F-35A's.


Also, the F-35 will probably have to get software upgrades at some point anyways. Wouldn't it cut cost if these upgrades happened simultaneously with an upgrade of the F-22's software? (of course, I'm making this sound a bit rosier than it probably is. Software wise I'm aware that some things will share a basic architectural design but the specifics will be vastly different, and it's different if the F-35 is open source and can be easily upgraded while as you pointed out the F-22's entire operating system would have to be replaced).

AFAIK the software is written in different codes, so any upgrade you develop for the F-35A has to be totally re written for the F-22A. Big, big, big problems when you consider the complexity of advanced features such as EA.

That is the way it SHOULD have been done from the ground up.


Similarly, couldn't they either upgrade the F-35's RAM, or downgrade the F-22's?

But then the F-22A wouldn't meet its RCS requirement or the F-35A wouldn't meet its cost, maintenance and exportability requirements. Plus it adds unnecessary diversity to the F-35A. Standardization in huge projects is a very valuable thing. That is in fact the current problem.


I'm under the notion that had the F-22 remained in production these costs spirals would have cropped up anyways.

They would have been amplified because you have to do its for more platforms.

I tend to err on the side of caution when estimating what capabilities other countries may develop. Just because the US is vastly ahead doesn't mean either Russia nor China can't catch up. As the head of the pack the US has the burden of figuring out new innovations, while Russia and China can make do with copying old ones and observing what's already on the field to quicken their own developments. One example of how countries at the head of the technological curve have the burden of improving slower is exactly what you pointed out. The F-22 is indeed far more advanced than anything else on the field, but that level of advancement is inhibited by cost and feasibility, which essentially gives other countries time to catch up, at least in terms of what they're fielding if not in terms of what they're developing.

But the gap is HUGE. And although there will be some ground made up, both the Russians and the Chinese have to go through a comparable development process. They wont have to follow all of the same steps the US did, but they defiantly can not just use US advances as some sort of technical guide. They still need to make the same breakthroughs with less experience, less resources and a smaller technological base. Will they both field 5th gen platforms? Yes. But you cant assume they will be more capable than the F-35A (the US's second 5th gen platform) when they are both yet to demonstrate basic competency in many of the technologies needed.


I am especially wary of China, as they do hold a lot of US debt, but in any case there's no clear answer to this point.

I wouldn't worry about that, they own US debt because they have no other real investment options. There inst much they could do with it to harm the US anyway accept stop buying. But remember the private sector held massive amounts of US debt before Beijing had a sovereign fund.

I agree that the platform is only one element, but the other elements to controlling an air space are much easier to upgrade and catch up on I think.

C4ISTAR is an area where the US's lead is accelerating. Its not just technology, its the vast amounts of resources the US can devote to that end. The US has a virtual monopoly on the militarization of space, and its lead is only getting wider. There are fundamental reasons why the US enjoys naval & space domination that have much to do with geography. Their rivals are forced to devote their scarcer resources to other ends like massive land forces.


I'd rather not get into the manned unmanned debate, and will leave the question of what exactly qualifies as 6th generation open.

Boeing was talking about its 6th gen platform that was both manned and unmanned.

I merely postulate that the F-22 would be a viable alternative to developing an entirely new fighter if a new fighter is needed before a next generation fighter is ready. The US is staring down a massive budget deficit, and I get the feeling that R&D of military hardware will naturally slow, at least for the next 8 years or so. For the same reason why new F-22s were struck down (US debt and the lack of need for them in our foreseeable conflicts) I imagine a 6th gen platform's R&D being slowed down (hard to justify new technology if the current one works fine). Should the F-35 not be enough, assuming a government still intent on managing military procurement tightly, having something still ahead of the curve but not too new might seem a cheaper alternative to fielding something too advanced to justify the cost for.

One way or another the new fighter will be under development, its just a matter of timing.

The F-22A's production line was shut down because of the supportability issues we are talking about, not just because of the budget deficit. The total R&D budget is actually growing. Its more a question of value for money than availability of money.

There is now way in hell 6th gen development will markedly slow, as stated earlier Boeing is already working on it.

Now if you are already developing a new platform, and for some reason your current platform is found wanting (but your other 5th gen alternative is a fundamentally flawed platform in terms supportability & cost) then buying more of them when you have something that's a full gen better around the corner doesn't make a heap of seance, especially considering the additional cost.

All this assumes the F-35A is not capable enough, and there's nothing to suggest that will be the case (the opposite in fact).

Again, not sure on how much money will go into R&D of a 6th gen platform when what we have is advanced enough now that we can't even justify continuing production of the F-22. Granted it would be wise to bring forward new technology, but as you said it's a matter of cost. Would it be cheaper to spend money to bring a 6th gen platform upfront or to put into production an old fighter whose capabilities were once too far ahead but are just about what you need at the time? You've convinced me that putting the F-22 back into production would be very expensive, but I wonder the answer to the question, and right now that answer's up in the air.

The fundamental reason for the cancellation of F-22A production is the through life development issues outlined by GF, not because it is too advanced for potential threats. The F-35A is more advanced in many aspects. Without these issues it is likely that the USAF would have 384 F-22A's and they would all be multi-role just like they wanted.

6th gen R&D is going a head at full steam. The perceived lack of requirement for advanced high end warfighting capability is a symptom of the US's current geopolitical circumstance, i.e. no peer. That will change in the next 20 years thus you can not use current funding arguments as evidence of likely issues in that timeframe.

However, what seems to be clear with the current end of the F-22 is that the military industrial complex no longer has a cold war to justify pushing the envelope of military technology like it did while the F-15 was in service. I find it an interesting irony that what's ended the F-22's production could slow down the R&D of a 6th generation platform in a way that might justify bringing the F-22 back.

There are still significant drivers for miltech development in the US, and allthough things may not be moving forward at Cold War pace something as fundamental as a new generation of fighter will not be slowed down or sacrificed. The US is now in a position of global dominance, unparralelled by any other nation in history, that is something extremely valuable and worth the investment (that's why the US spends almost more on defence than the rest of the world combined). Anyway Washington will be back in the business of peer competition quick smart so those drivers will be there yet again. Remember the current geopolitical circumstance is am exception, not the norm.

Perhaps the primary difference of views then is that I suspect the F-35's capabilities won't be enough in the future, and the slowdown of military spending that helped doom the F-22 could also doom everything that was supposed to come after it and make conditions more reasonable for its return. Of course, you're right in saying the F-35 is a highly adaptable platform, but that adaptability is limited by what the airframe is designed to do. The F-35 was originally designed assuming a high/low mix with the F-22 occupying the high position. With the potential retirement of the F-15C (and the F-15C is quickly aging), the USAF will be left without a fighter to fill in that position. What will it do then?

There is no slow down in military spending, the F-22A was doomed by design flaws not a lack of funds. The US will be spending more on defence in the 2020's than it is now anyway so that's not an issue.

Sure there are some design limitations in the airframe, but they are account for significantly less of the platforms war fighting capability than in previous generations. Sensors, VLO, communications, weapons and the ability to operate in a networked environment are the defining factors in 5th gen combat, and the airframe has little impact on those. The traditional Hi/Lo mix is less critical because the integration of platforms, weapons and supporting assets make fighter performance less relevant than it once was.

In any case the USAF will have several wings of F-22A's to deploy in support of its 1,800 F-35A's in a Hi Lo mix. Hardly lacking in 5th gen platforms considering no one has even produced a prototype 5th gen platform yet. By the way the F-35C will be the USN's primary air superiority fighter.

[eckherl]

Guys read GF's earlier post, everyone would love more F-22A's but LM screwed the pooch. Even the ones they have wont all be able to fulfill the air superiority role in 15 years. F-22A will be a black hole in terms of through life development, its a fundamentally flawed platform, its got little to do with partisan politics.

Yep, after reading GF`s post I no longer feel the same inregards to our beloved F-22. If the F-35 is that capable as a multi role aircraft then that should be where our emphasis be placed.