Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/146799/

Topic: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: oykie
Posted 2012-09-11 11:29:08 and read 23388 times.

The Republican President candidate Mitt Romney is quoted on an AviationWeek blog that he will restart the Raptor production if he is elected president of the United States of America.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...bbb840-e3ce-4c81-95e3-fe8e9720178a

It comes at a tremendous cost to restart the F-22 line. It will cost 900 million USD. Now how many is he likely to buy?

According to the DewLine blog it was believed 15 years ago that they would buy 339 jets when the Raptor flew for the first time. According to the same article it was originally envisioned 750 F-22 raptors.

As an aviation geek, I would love for a restart of the mighty F-22. If it is the best for the world economy and the U.S economy I do not actually know 

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-09-11 12:08:17 and read 23391 times.

A totally bonkers idea. The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's) and it will have far fewer of the problems the F-22 had. To justify bringing the F-22 back you would need to remake it to have more in common with the F-35 I think so your maint. cost and time are not so high.

If the US decides to spend a lot of money on a new fighter I think you will see something of a cross between the F-35 and F-22 and it has to be good for the Navy and Air Force. You are not going to spend that kind of scratch to build another hundred or so F-22A's.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-09-11 13:29:55 and read 23290 times.

Nothing more than election talk.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: HaveBlue
Posted 2012-09-11 16:46:58 and read 23183 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2):
Nothing more than election talk.

Agreed. And no way he could get the support for this even if he tried after all the groundings/problems the F-22 has had in the last few years. I'm a huge fan of the F-22 and would love to see more of them, but that was just election talk, nothing more.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: checksixx
Posted 2012-09-11 20:40:38 and read 23083 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1):
The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's)

The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-09-11 22:00:20 and read 23057 times.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 4):
The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.

Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

The reality of the F-22's production was that the USAF could not produce more using the current configuration. Basically the Raptors utilize an avionics architecture based on the i960MX processor that was never upgraded in the expectation that they would be replaced after 2010. So in 2003 they bought up all the remaining MX chips from Intel (before they closed their line) and used that stock to complete the current production flight of aircraft. The new avionics suite was to be based on the F-35's architecture, but that too was cut somewhere between 2004 and 2006. So in order to produce more F-22s the USAF would be on the hook to pay for a major avionics upgrade program. To get from increment 3.1 to 3.2 (which is just updating the current architecture) the USAF is looking at $8 billion dollars in development. Introducing a full fledged new avionics suite would be far more than that.

Finally I get the sense that the USAF brass would rather go with F-35s than F-22s. Raptors are horrendously expensive to operate and maintain. Starting up the production line would be extremely expensive as well; you could be looking at costs where you could buy 2.5 to 3 F-35s for each F-22.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: checksixx
Posted 2012-09-12 04:23:18 and read 22918 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

First, there is NOTHING funded to get 6 AIM-120's inside the F-35.

Second, I can see where you're confused. There is technically space to do that and have six missiles internal. There is not sufficient clearance to actually fire them without hitting others on the way out. Just have a look at what I mean...

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-09-12 06:17:38 and read 22844 times.

IF they offered the F-22 for export to allies... might make it worth it, but really, once the F-35 is in service in numbers, the hi-lo mix of F-22 to F-35 will be sufficient imo.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-12 06:29:00 and read 22836 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2):
Nothing more than election talk.

Who knows? IIRC Reagan campaigned on putting the B1 bomber into production after Carter had cancelled it, and that's what happened.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
To get from increment 3.1 to 3.2 (which is just updating the current architecture) the USAF is looking at $8 billion dollars in development.

It'd be easier to just build a new chip foundry. Fabs of that generation cost $1B - $2B max and chances are good that the equipment is available used cheap, because there ain't much to do with obsolete chip making gear.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-09-12 07:21:31 and read 22795 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1):
The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's) and it will have far fewer of the problems the F-22 had. To justify bringing the F-22 back you would need to remake it to have more in common with the F-35 I think so your maint. cost and time are not so high.
Quoting checksixx (Reply 4):
The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

Correct, the F-35 is not funded to carry 6 AMRAAMs. If it did, it could not perform the attack mission it is designed to do, as there would be no space left for advanced bombs.

I still think the F-35 is a dog we should not buy. Replacing its mission can be done by the current F/A-18E/F, F-16E/F, or the proposed F-15SE (which can have frontal stealth capabilities).

The F-35 is rapidly approaching the costs of the F-22A. An improved F-22B/C/D would be a good buy, and some models should be two seaters for training and/or a WSO. The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK. The F-22s problems are known and will eventually be fixed, while not all of the F-35s problems are known yet. They won't so up until the F-35 gets to operational squadrons.

The F-35B/C mission can be replaced by Rafales and F/A-18E/Fs.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-09-12 08:39:06 and read 22763 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK



After Israel tried to sell the Chinese AWACs aircraft with technology we shared with them ? They had to cancel that sale after pressure from the Clinton administration. Can they be trusted as much as say Britain or Australia? Also why does Israel need such technology when they already have a clear advantage militarily over everyone else. The next closest militarily to Israel in the Middle East are US allies (Saudi Arabia). There's no need for Israel to have the F-22.

Now Japan and Australia have a need for an aircraft like the F-22, they are at a huge numerical disadvantage to China. Exporting F-22s to Japan and Australia can be justified as a way to help buffer China's huge military expansion.

As for restarting the F-22 production, while I think it's a great idea, I also think the funds might be better spent in other areas such as increasing production of Virginia Class attack submarines, increasing F-35 production for the Air Force, Navy and Marines , an Ohio class SSBN/SSGN replacement, additional Zumwalt (DDG-1000) Destroyers, maintaining a fleet of 11 Carriers by increasing Ford Class production, America class amphibious assault ships, and restarting the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle production.

Also maintaining US combat forces levels in the Army and Marine Corps, especially by relocating more forces to the Pacific (particularly Western Australia and Hawaii).

[Edited 2012-09-12 08:54:20]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-09-12 17:20:23 and read 22544 times.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 6):
First, there is NOTHING funded to get 6 AIM-120's inside the F-35.

Second, I can see where you're confused. There is technically space to do that and have six missiles internal. There is not sufficient clearance to actually fire them without hitting others on the way out. Just have a look at what I mean...

Block 5 upgrade is funded and is part of the upgrade spiral for F-35. Block 5 includes new maritime radar modes (ISAR, Infrared Search and Track, EW upgrades and integration of six AIM-120D AMRAAM missiles. Not to mention that Block 5 is a critical upgrade for a number of foreign customers, such as Norway.

F-35's weapons bay volume is far larger than that of the F-22, which carries 6 internal AAMs. The main weapon station wide enough to hold two staggered AIM-120s. It is also more than long enough -- the AIM-120 is 3.66 m long, the F-35 bay is 4.2 m long.

Clearance is not a big issue. With pneumatic ejectors the missile will be released at the end of the stroke and by that time they will be past or very nearly past the level of the door mounted missile. The F-22's LAU-142 for example has a stroke of 9 inches and the missiles will have a vertical velocity of 27 fps by the time they are freed. The chances of them colliding with the rail missile is essentially zero even under extreme maneuvering.

However, fitting more AAMs in the F-35 will require a new ejector to be developed. There are currently two -- the LAU-120 for single stores up to 2500 lbs and the BRU-61 for 4 x SDBs -- and neither will accomodate an AMRAAM much less two.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):

It'd be easier to just build a new chip foundry. Fabs of that generation cost $1B - $2B max and chances are good that the equipment is available used cheap, because there ain't much to do with obsolete chip making gear.

However, the avionics will still be out of date, and integrating any new capabilities would be a total nightmare. Remember, there was talk of actually replacing F-22's avionics with systems developed from F-35 because F-35's avionics systems are inherently easily upgradable.

Basically to restart the aircraft it would cost $70 million per aircraft on top of $137 million that they already cost. That's when they have all the toolings and manufacturing knowledge preserved and ready to go. So you have a production run of $207 million dollar Raptor's; I would probably argue and many in the USAF and the Pentagon would agree that it would make more sense to buy more F-35's and fund various upgrades of that verses restarting F-22 production.

The F-22 is basically a millstone around the USAF's neck, one we should count our graces that we in Canada avoided. Even comparatively minor upgrades to the avionics (like integrating the AIM-9X or JHMC) are costing billions. Its experiencing serious corrosion problems, its skin easily delaminates, and that doesn't even go into the whole oxygen problem. Flyaway cost through FMS for a final production F-22 would have been around $157.7 million (137.7 million +15% fms.) That's basically two F-35s for one F-22.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK.

Fat chance. First off there is the legal challenge of overturning the Obey amendment. There is a lot of opposition against this, especially given the current austerity budgets. And yes, countries have tried. The Japanese basically tried every single lever they could pull, in Congress, through the Bush and Obama Administration(s) and the US Military's FMS program: it was an emphatic no from everyone. I'm sure the Israelis were just as active and they got nowhere, despite the large Israeli lobby.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: checksixx
Posted 2012-09-13 21:49:32 and read 22281 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
F-35's weapons bay volume is far larger than that of the F-22, which carries 6 internal AAMs.

If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-09-14 00:39:34 and read 22243 times.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 12):
If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.

F-35 in the A and C model have bays that are sized to hold a 2,000lb class weapon. I can concede that the F-35B probably won't get 6 internal AIM-120's, as the F-35B's bays are smaller in size. F-22 at best holds 2 1,000lbs JDAM's, and was designed around the AIM-120's size. As such, it is not a deep nor as long as F-35, while F-35's bays, while not as wide, are deeper and longer.

It wasn't so long ago that the F-22 was designed to fit only 4 AIM-120B's only. It was only until late in the development phase that they got 6 AIM-120's in F-22 and modified F-22 to carry bombs, but that was after the fact. They got 6 AIM-120's into F-22 through using the AIM-120C, which was smaller by virtue of its clipped fins, and through staggering the missiles.

A new launcher will be required for F-35 to carry 6 AIM-120's. But that's down the road.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: oykie
Posted 2012-09-14 01:05:56 and read 22230 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
IIRC Reagan campaigned on putting the B1 bomber into production after Carter had cancelled it, and that's what happened.

That was my thinking as well. The Air Force says they needed 350 or so to efficiently stop China.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
An improved F-22B/C/D would be a good buy, and some models should be two seaters for training and/or a WSO.

This was my thinking as well. In 1993 they talked about replacing the F-14 tomcat with a carrier version of the F-22    I am sure that an improved F-22B/C could reduce some of the production costs and operating cost associated with the current F-22

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-09-14 05:09:33 and read 22163 times.

If they roll a FB-22 into this reactivation, it would help cover the costs of a 2 seat F-22 and reactivating the line.


I think they need a F-22 lite. Same air frame, no stealth coating, cheaper guts, no thrust vectoring. Bring the price way down on par with 4+ gen fighters, but keep it capable of being upgraded to the full F-22A standard.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-09-14 05:15:26 and read 22164 times.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 12):

If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.

Bill Sweetman hates the F-35 but put this up several years ago.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4

I don't have inside program knowledge but it sure seems like the weapons should fit in the space depending on how you play with the space. Even if you can't it is not that big of a deal either way as it relates to the original question. An F-35 with 4 AMRAAM's is still potent enough to make restarting F-22 production a waste of money right now.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-09-14 05:35:17 and read 22159 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):


I think they need a F-22 lite. Same air frame, no stealth coating, cheaper guts, no thrust vectoring. Bring the price way down on par with 4+ gen fighters, but keep it capable of being upgraded to the full F-22A standard.

I am fairly sure this would be impractical and pointless. I am not sure how you make the guts cheaper. No thrust vectoring just means you have to rewrite the control laws for the avionics most likely which would cost you more than it would save. The coatings are really not the expensive part of the plane to begin with, they are just a pain in the ass to maintain.

If you were going to do anything with the F-22 what you do is re-skin it with the stuff they are using on the F-35 to save maint. cost.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-09-14 17:51:32 and read 21989 times.

So what else could they do with a F22B? Will F135 Engines fit? It seems like they have 20% more thrust - are they better on fuel?

Adapt F35 avionics?

In several articles it talks about how the last F22 off the line were much better built than the first with stealth coatings that much more durable as well.

Build another 200 for the Airforce - scrap the F35 and build another 1,000 or so F16's and restart A10 production while your at it for the Marines to replace the F-35B.

Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance (11 Carriers x12 = 132 plus 68 for training/deep maintenance) and keep the the Super Hornet line going with the AESA Radar new Cockpit and 20% more thrust, as a flying bomb truck with the way paved by the the F22C

The Navy doesn't need a single engine warplane.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-09-14 18:05:25 and read 21976 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):
Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance

Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 17):
I am fairly sure this would be impractical and pointless.

I doubt the airframe is what makes the F-22 expensive. The F-22 has a lot of bells and whistles it could do without if being used as a secondary fighter or bomb truck.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-09-14 19:19:55 and read 21953 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
I doubt the airframe is what makes the F-22 expensive. The F-22 has a lot of bells and whistles it could do without if being used as a secondary fighter or bomb truck.

Why not just build the F-35 if you want a bomb truck since it was designed to carry bombs?

Doing all the change work on the F-22 would drive the price up, not down.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-09-14 21:16:15 and read 21919 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):
The Navy doesn't need a single engine warplane.

You speak for the Navy now?

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 20):
Doing all the change work on the F-22 would drive the price up, not down.

People like the F-22 mostly due to fanboism. Never-mind facts.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-09-14 21:38:57 and read 21909 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):
So what else could they do with a F22B?

Nobody is ever going to know now. The JSF was a generally poor idea which should have been known after the F-111, but we're too far down that road now to turn back. The industry should be commended for the F-35 not being worse off than it is.

Sure, the smarter thing ten or fifteen years ago would have been further development of the F-22 followed by the FB-22, but that's all water under the bridge now.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: GDB
Posted 2012-09-15 00:09:45 and read 21878 times.

Well the idea of the UK having the F-22 is a non starter, way too expensive and even if they were given away the operating costs would be too onerous.
The future fast jet fleet is settled on two types, Typhoon and F-35.

It's also notable how weirdos like Romney and Ryan have this blind spot with Israel's less than stellar record with sensitive US military technology and China.
It could be said that previous episodes with this are in the past, however that's never stopped people like them citing other nations 'issues' with the US from further back in the past, real or imagined.
Israel did these things because they felt they had immunity from criticism, much less the prospect of any action, from the US body politic. Why else would they apparently risk their absolutely vital equipping and funding from the US?
So the real fault lies on Capitol Hill.

I agree this is all just electioneering, file alongside Gingrich's 'put a base on the Moon by 2020'.
Isn't it a bit odd also to on the one hand go on about the deficit but also say you want the already massive US defence expenditure increased even more?

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-09-15 02:40:42 and read 21832 times.

There was an FB22 idea but it was cancelled. I fail to see how a F35 would have more capacity than the F22 to carry ordnance, I just cant get around the physical difference.

The F22 is dead and will stay that way, we have to live with the compromised F35 as a compromise in its 3 different roles. The F35 program actually has overtaken the F22 program in cost per unit now   Great!

The F35 is a bad replacement of the combined F16 and F15 roles against gen5 enemies. The few F22s will not do any difference IMO.

I am sorry all F35 lovers, I just don't see it being the answer to all questions and the solution to all problems. And it will too get cut in numbers, ending up way short to deter an enemy in the future.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-15 06:01:38 and read 22161 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

Depends on how hard you try. After the YF-17 lost to the YF-16, the Navy told the designers they had to make the F-18 landing gear fit through the same aperture as the YF-17, and they did.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
The F22 is dead and will stay that way

Yes, despite this pleasant chat, that is true.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
The few F22s will not do any difference IMO.

Interesting. In anyone else's air force, 185 Gen5 A/C would be seen as making a difference, so why not the USAF?

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
The F35 program actually has overtaken the F22 program in cost per unit now

Good news for you: above we read that you need to add $70M to the cost of each F22 if we restart the line.

Too bad we didn't do a round of flying prototypes for the F35 so we'd be sure we knew how to build them and so their costs wouldn't go crazy. Oops - we did do that, and the costs still went crazy!

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ebj1248650
Posted 2012-09-15 13:54:29 and read 22002 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance
Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

I believe it's universally understood that you can modify a carrier airplane and make it a good ground based plane, but you have to design an airplane from the ground up to make it a good carrier based plane.

As I recall, General Dynamics in the early years offered a navalized F-16 and it turned out to be so heavy and underperforming the Navy rejected it. France produced a navalized version of the Jaguar but its development coincided with development of the ground based model and I suspect some of what was learned building the carrier based prototype was utilized in the ground based model as well.

Technology being what it is today, I may be wrong about having to design a carrier based airplane from the ground up, but given the demands on a carrier based attack plane versus those on a ground placed attack bird, I doubt it.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-09-15 14:14:49 and read 22246 times.

You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing.  http://i.imgur.com/1x4fg.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/D0Guf.jpg

And help pay the debt, lol.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-09-15 18:21:29 and read 22195 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 27):
You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing.

Is that the J-20 second prototype or another jet? it looks more like a F-35 than the J-20 did. The photos are low quality, but I dont see the canards either. This looks more like an air superiority fighter than the J-20. Different markings too.


::edit::

It is a new Chinese stealth fighter! OMG!

[Edited 2012-09-15 18:25:15]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: mffoda
Posted 2012-09-15 19:26:21 and read 22167 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 28):
Quoting Acheron (Reply 27):
You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing.

Is that the J-20 second prototype or another jet? it looks more like a F-35 than the J-20 did. The photos are low quality, but I dont see the canards either. This looks more like an air superiority fighter than the J-20. Different markings too.


::edit::

It is a new Chinese stealth fighter! OMG!

It's the same A/C as seen in earlier photo's... Nothing new to see here, please move along.  

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-09-16 11:40:06 and read 21955 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 29):
It's the same A/C as seen in earlier photo's... Nothing new to see here, please move along.

No its not, it is a smaller jet, here is a pic that surfaced today. The J-20 does not have stabilator or rudders.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z5dNEFlfhBI/UFVyn7ZVrwI/AAAAAAAARQ8/XBPxF1Spbkc/s1600/1347776830_63681.jpg

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wacopolumbo
Posted 2012-09-20 07:01:40 and read 21274 times.

It would be great to see more Raptors built. We could finally replace the final 3 Eagle Squadrons on Active duty - Origionally there were 5 squadrons left and for budget reasons, they prematurely shut down the guys here at Langley (71FS) and at Mountain Home (390FS). I have read these forums for years and don't post, mainly becuase most military stuff is sensitive or classified. But I can tell you that anyone who is read-in on both the F-22 and F-35 would NEVER agree that the F-35 can do the F-22 mission. There are too many limitations to the F-35 in the Air Dominance mission. It is the same as saying the F-16 could equally perform the F-15 Air Superiority mission. The F-15 has guys targeted and sorted well before the F-16 gets solid contacts.

Not meant as a flame to anyone, but the F-35 is no F-22. Then again, the F-35 has some unique mission profiles not able to be performed by the F-22.

If the F-35 is going to carry external oridinace after the first few days of the war, then why not buy a mix of F-35s and Block 60 Vipers. The Block 60 is basically an F-35 in F-16 clothing and much cheaper. Once LO is not needed, and the F-35 is hauling ordinance externally, why not a Block 60?

Back to the subject, the price of the F-22 has gone down with every airplane produced, the last one we brought to Langley (194) had a bill of just over $100 million. While, at the same time the F-35 price tag is going through the roof. Since production was cut to such a silly number, we could really use more....

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-09-20 16:51:20 and read 21151 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 31):
If the F-35 is going to carry external oridinace after the first few days of the war, then why not buy a mix of F-35s and Block 60 Vipers. The Block 60 is basically an F-35 in F-16 clothing and much cheaper. Once LO is not needed, and the F-35 is hauling ordinance externally, why not a Block 60?

The Block 60 Viper is extremely expensive; 87 million dollars per copy back in 1998. With inflation, that rises to well over $117 million dollars a copy.

In addition, F-35's internal weapons capability is equal to that of a F-16 loaded wall to wall. Once stealth is no longer a primary issue, a F-35 can carry about three times (18,000lbs) the stores load of that of an F-16.
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f-35-and-current-weapons

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wacopolumbo
Posted 2012-09-26 07:30:20 and read 20511 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 32):
The Block 60 Viper is extremely expensive; 87 million dollars per copy back in 1998. With inflation, that rises to well over $117 million dollars a copy.

In addition, F-35's internal weapons capability is equal to that of a F-16 loaded wall to wall. Once stealth is no longer a primary issue, a F-35 can carry about three times (18,000lbs) the stores load of that of an F-16.
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlair...apons

The Block 60 was expensive because less than 100 were produced. The more you buy, the cheaper they get. Every Raptor, every jet we picked up from the factory had a cheaper price tag. However, with the R&D out of the way, it would have been able to get into the fleet faster than the F-35. Also, training (pilot and maintainer) would have faster/cheaper. Basically anyone who can fly a Viper, can fly a Block 60. It's the employment that changes slightly. Basically a TX course instead of a B course for the pilot and an FTD course for the maintainers.

As for the load-out. The F-35A in an LO configuaration will be 2x2xGun (AIM-120, Bomb, 25MM), where the F-16 is 2x2x2xGun (AIM-120, AIM-9, Bomb, 20MM). The Viper has mission flexibility for mixed loads too, ie 2 GBU-38 and 2 GBU-12 and mixing the air to air load to either 4 of either or 3 of one and one of the other. Typical night emplyment would be 4 AMRAAMs or 3 AMRAAMs and one heater. Don't discount the extra two missiles. In a turning fight, having the heaters is huge!

Granted, the F-35 does carry more weapons with pylons on the jet than a Viper, but then the LO advantage is gone and why not employ a Mud Hen with it's crew of 2 and plethera of air to ground options?

The thing that is NOT discussed when the F-35 is brought up is it's employment capabilities because that is close-hold. However, as operators, we aren't too excited about it. It is not as maneuverable as current aircraft, is slow and doesn't have much of a high show. Also, while it does have a poop-ton of internal fuel, that giant 40K thrust engine eats it at a higher rate than you would think.

I am NOT saying the F-35 is a bad aircraft. It has some great capability, but it's not the end all - be all (no single jet is). I think a mix of new 4th and 5th Gen fighters would be best from a cost, training, risk and emplyment standpoint. I would love to see a CAF made up of more Raptors, Lightnings, Strike Eagles, Block 60 Vipers and of course, re-engined A-10s. That also protects the CAF incase of a major problem with one platform, ie, the Raptor stand-down for O2 problems.

[Edited 2012-09-26 07:32:07]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-09-26 17:53:45 and read 20351 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33):
However, with the R&D out of the way, it would have been able to get into the fleet faster than the F-35.

Assuming F-16 production can ramp up that fast... FYI, long term lead items need to be ordered now otherwise the line is going to be shuttered in 2 years.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33):
As for the load-out. The F-35A in an LO configuaration will be 2x2xGun (AIM-120, Bomb, 25MM), where the F-16 is 2x2x2xGun (AIM-120, AIM-9, Bomb, 20MM).

F-16, even with the conformal fuel tank, will need external fuel tanks to achieve the maximum range. F-35 will achieve its maximum range on internal fuel alone, and for a slight range penalty, be loaded up with 18,000lb of nothing but weapons. With F-16, there is a trade off between range and fuel.
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f-35-and-current-weapons

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33):

Granted, the F-35 does carry more weapons with pylons on the jet than a Viper, but then the LO advantage is gone and why not employ a Mud Hen with it's crew of 2 and plethera of air to ground options?

Because you will only need 1 platform to do the jobs two platforms used to do; F-35 can kick down the door when loaded for low observability, and when the airspace opens up and we have achieved air superiority over the opponent, we can have the same aircraft be loaded with external weapons.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33):
. It is not as maneuverable as current aircraft, is slow and doesn't have much of a high show.

The minimum KPP of the F-35 in terms of maneuverability is F-16-like, with the best case goal being F/A-18 like. They are more than achieving the best case goal of F/A-18-like maneuverability:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...-Revealing-F-A-18-Like-Performance

Quote:
Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

And it should be noted of the US fighters, the F/A-18 is the most maneuverable fighter in the US inventory.

F-35 also will out-accelerate any fighter in the US inventory, except for the F-22 and a clean F-16 Block 50. F-35 is designed for the transonic regime while practically every other fighter designed (except for F-22) is designed for operating at subsonic speeds. They only visit the supersonic performance range and only briefly.
http://www.livescience.com/3032-figh...et-controversial-future-fleet.html

Quote:
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.
Quote:
While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). "I don't see how that gets you an advantage" Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs.

Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as "supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there," Beesley explained. "In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter," Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts' much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wacopolumbo
Posted 2012-09-27 07:53:43 and read 20140 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):

Again, all the references you provided are open source. Real-world is a bit different. No one in the CAF is jumping for joy for the F-35, especially the Viper drivers. The hornet is definitely NOT the most maneuverable. The hornet has advantages at low altitude and in slower flight in that it can point it's nose with authority, but lacks power to regain airspeed once in the slow fight. The Super Hornet is similar. The all-out best BFM machine we have is either a big mouth Block 30 or a Block 50/52 Viper. The Raptor is right up there too, but we don't have the helmet or 9x which are BFM essential today.

As a 20 Air Force guy that is still serving, I base these comments on experience and discussions with bros who are in the other communities.

Again, the F-35 has a place, but is not the end-all, be-all. It is primarily a bomber and heaven forbid it has to perform a primary air to air role.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-09-27 09:52:43 and read 20134 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 35):
Again, the F-35 has a place, but is not the end-all, be-all. It is primarily a bomber and heaven forbid it has to perform a primary air to air role.

This is based on your experience flying the F35? REAL F35 pilots say otherwise.....

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sovietjet
Posted 2012-09-27 11:24:18 and read 20085 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 36):
REAL F35 pilots say otherwise.....

Would you expect them to say anything else? Do you honestly expect any F-35 pilot to say something negative about the plane? Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft. Clearly, nobody has taken other high performance aircraft in mind such as EF2000, Rafale, Su-30 etc.. and rightfully so since these pilots haven't had the chance to fly those aircraft. It would be silly for them to say "F-35 is more maneuverable than Su-30" when they can't justify the argument with experience.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-09-27 12:24:16 and read 20088 times.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 37):
Would you expect them to say anything else? Do you honestly expect any F-35 pilot to say something negative about the plane? Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft. Clearly, nobody has taken other high performance aircraft in mind such as EF2000, Rafale, Su-30 etc.. and rightfully so since these pilots haven't had the chance to fly those aircraft. It would be silly for them to say "F-35 is more maneuverable than Su-30" when they can't justify the argument with experience.

I'd take the statement of a F-35 pilot 1000x over someone on the internet who thinks they know something, anything, about the program. Obviously pilots aren't going to publicly talk about the negatives of the aircraft for security reasons.

Quote:
Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft.

Ya, its their jobs. I'd like to know which a.neters are involved with the JSF program, let alone military aviation. Seems to be a lot of "experts" on the net giving their opinions based on nothing. Thankfully, they don't dictate military programs or purchases.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-09-27 22:44:21 and read 19981 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 35):
Again, all the references you provided are open source. Real-world is a bit different. No one in the CAF is jumping for joy for the F-35, especially the Viper drivers. The hornet is definitely NOT the most maneuverable. The hornet has advantages at low altitude and in slower flight in that it can point it's nose with authority, but lacks power to regain airspeed once in the slow fight. The Super Hornet is similar. The all-out best BFM machine we have is either a big mouth Block 30 or a Block 50/52 Viper. The Raptor is right up there too, but we don't have the helmet or 9x which are BFM essential today.

Considering that the USAF, the USMC, and the USN, in the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Requirements Document has instead placed F-16-like performance as the minimum required, and F/A-18 like performance as the objective, all three services will disagree with your assertion that the F-16 is more maneuverable.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wacopolumbo
Posted 2012-10-03 08:35:57 and read 19411 times.

All I was trying to inject is a little real-world input into the dicussion. No I haven't flown it and don't want to. I come from an Eagle and Raptor background, with 20 years of service. Again, am NOT saying the F-35 is a bad platform. What I AM saying is that the F-35 is not the second coming. Having flown against Viper and Hornets (both legacy and Super), I can tell you the Viper is a much better BFM foe, except for the slower fight (below 330KIAS) and at lower altitudes (Below 15-18K) where the hornet can point its nose better, but struggles to regain energy.

My coments on the jet come from briefings and discussions with dudes who fly it. It IS an increible senor platform though.

This tread reminds me of the reasons over the years that I read posts (normally the airliner forum) and don't comment. I respect all of your opinions and although I have tried to shed some light on why more Raptors (OP) would be great and a mix of Lightings (we call it the pig or fat jet) and new build Strike Eagles and Vipers would be a great CAF mix. Again, based on my EXPERIENCE and discussions with bros who fly the F-35 and briefings on the jet (remember, we have to come up with a plan to integrate them into the AOB and battlespace).

Cheers,
Waco

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: cargotanker
Posted 2012-10-03 09:46:16 and read 19357 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 40):
All I was trying to inject is a little real-world input into the dicussion

Please keep posting and don't let the snarky comments from the uninformed wannabees dissuade you. Your posts are more more informative and relevant than anything else here.

I tried to educate a few folks on some of the C-17 vs A400M threads about basic airlift realities. I wasn't that successful.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-03 10:06:10 and read 19352 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 40):
What I AM saying is that the F-35 is not the second coming.

I don't think anyone is. Like already mentioned, if the USAF, USMC and US Navy thought that the F35 would be a poor performer then they wouldn't buy it, along with other international customers. I believe that later generations of fighters will be focused more on EW, Stealth and Avionics rather than who can turn the sharpest at certain conditions. Countries don't buy fighters (primarily) to wow crowds at airshows through fancy tumbling acts.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-10-03 14:07:29 and read 19245 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 38):
Ya, its their jobs. I'd like to know which a.neters are involved with the JSF program, let alone military aviation. Seems to be a lot of "experts" on the net giving their opinions based on nothing. Thankfully, they don't dictate military programs or purchases.

You;'d be including yourself in that population ?

Once again, military programs and purchases, approvals and budgeting, are the purview of the civilian world, not the unis. For example, check the axe Harpo et al is taking to DND's budget ...

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-03 16:02:56 and read 19185 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 43):
You;'d be including yourself in that population ?

Somewhat.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 43):
Once again, military programs and purchases, approvals and budgeting, are the purview of the civilian world, not the unis.

That's all fine and dandy, but I was hinting more towards your average citizen in the population, not a politician. Its not like there are national votes on military purchases, that would just be foolish. Canada would probably end up with a bastardized Arrow made in Quebec because Canadians are generally dumb and pick the shiniest thing.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-10-04 03:17:48 and read 19073 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
Canada would probably end up with a bastardized Arrow made in Quebec because Canadians are generally dumb and pick the shiniest thing.

Like the F-35, one might suppose.  

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wacopolumbo
Posted 2012-10-04 05:56:24 and read 19059 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 42):

The fact that the USAF, USMC and USN are buying the F-35 is not entirely their choice. There is a TON of politics involved in all of this. In the USAF, for example, where a Block 60 Viper or new Mudhens would be better financially and operationally in addition to the F-35 purchase it would NEVER happen because USAF leaders know the minute they acknowledge that we could use some more 4th Gen fighters, our Congress and WH would come back with the arguement that why have a 5th Gen fighter at all then. Of the three services, the Marines are the ones who are most in need of a new airplane. The Harrier has never been all that (high Pk for IR SAMS because of the central exhaust/IR source) and are a major pain for maintainers but they serve a unique USMC mission and they are now very long in the tooth and need to be retired/replaced. Hell, the Brits don't even fly them anymore. The Navy could always buy more Super Hornets and we could get Vipers and Mudhens (if you take the politics out), so its our Marines that are most in need of the F-35 and thats why they will be the first service to achieve IOC with them.

Remeber, we don't ALWAYs buy what's best, we buy what we are told to buy. The idea that one airplane can doo it all for all services has been tried before, The F-4 Phantom comes to mind. After that, SECDAF directed the USN and USAF to buy the F-111. The Navy realized the F-111 could not do it's mission and the F-14 was born, but not before a bunch of money was wasted on the Navy version of the F-111 (B Model).

The F-35 brings an incredible sensor suite to the fight as well as LO technology. Those are it's strengths. Also, for the foriegn buyers, its the only game in town. There are no other 5th Gen fighters available on the market.

That said, the LO advantage the F-35 brings also comes at a price. First, the LO technology on current 5th gen fighters has a shelf life. Eventually radars will be desined to detect them. That would be why the F-117 was retired. It was no longer relevant in the fight. It wasn't an SA-20 that brought the 117 down in Allied Force (1999), it was a SAM that has been around for a Loooooong time. Also, the LO is VERY maintenance intensive. Its not like the old days of removing a panel, fix the problem and installing the panel. Removing and installing panels on stealth aircraft add a lot of time to the maintenance process. The F-35 and F-22 have more maintenance man hours per flight hour than the Super Hornet, Viper or Eagle.

Having a current, approprietly sized 5th Gen fleet is important, but so is maintaining a larger fleet of updated 4th gen fighters that achieve sortie rates unavailable to the the 5th Gen jets.

I don't dislike the F-35 (wouldn't want to fly it), it will fill a mission requirement but it is no F-22. Like I said before, I would rather fly a Viper than an F-35.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sovietjet
Posted 2012-10-04 08:42:37 and read 19015 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46):
There are no other 5th Gen fighters available on the market.

No other 5th gen fighters that would be POLITICALLY available to F-35 buyers  

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-10-04 08:54:01 and read 19011 times.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 47):
No other 5th gen fighters that would be POLITICALLY available to F-35 buyers

There is no other commercially ready 5th generation fighter. The other ones are in prototype stage at this point and much further away from actual full service than the F-35.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-04 09:03:28 and read 19003 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 45):
Like the F-35, one might suppose.

Not really, the F-35 was chosen by the Military, not a civy.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-10-04 11:44:19 and read 18975 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46):
Hell, the Brits don't even fly them anymore

The Brits don't fly them anymore because they can't afford to, not because they don't want to.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 45):
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
Canada would probably end up with a bastardized Arrow made in Quebec because Canadians are generally dumb and pick the shiniest thing.

Your above quote uses a very broad brush - "Canadians" includes both civilians and military. Responding to that. When you want to make a point, be more precise.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wacopolumbo
Posted 2012-10-04 12:34:34 and read 18950 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 50):
The Brits don't fly them anymore because they can't afford to, not because they don't want to.

Part of my point. The Harrier is maintenance heavy and expensive to operate. What I find interesting is that they think they will be able to afford to fly the F-35 when they can't fly the Harrier. Then you have the F-35B to F-35C to F-35B decision.

The USMC jets are also long in the tooth. They Brit Harriers (not the Sea Harriers) were newer.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-10-04 20:52:09 and read 18840 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46):
Remeber, we don't ALWAYs buy what's best, we buy what we are told to buy. The idea that one airplane can doo it all for all services has been tried before, The F-4 Phantom comes to mind. After that, SECDAF directed the USN and USAF to buy the F-111. The Navy realized the F-111 could not do it's mission and the F-14 was born, but not before a bunch of money was wasted on the Navy version of the F-111 (B Model).

Actually disagree, plenty of books were written about the topic, but the crux of the situation was that the Navy never wanted the F-111B in the first place. Inter-service rivalry reared its ugly head here as the Navy saw the F-111 as being an 'Air Force' aircraft as the project management staff was predominantly dominated by Air Force personnel, and tried to find ways of killing the project.

In fact, the Navy drastically redrafted the requirements so in essence, the F-14 would not have been able to meet the proposed specifications for the F-111B, and of course vice versa.

The specifications the Navy wrote for the F-111B was a totally unrealistic specification. Many think that the F-14A was far lighter than the F-111B, primarily because most comparisons neglect to do so using the F-111B’s design mission for both aircraft. The F-14A is still lighter, of course, because the Navy changed its requirements so that it would be. Deleted were the escape capsule, bomb bay, and swiveling wing pylon stations among other things. The Hughes Airborne Missile Control System, given a few more years of development, was lighter. The structure was designed for 6.5 gs at 49,548 lbs, about 10,000 pounds less than the F-111B’s design gross weight at that g level. In effect, the six Phoenixes and 3,800 lbs of fuel were treated as an overload for the design of the F-14A structure. At combat weight (13,800 lbs fuel and six Phoenix missiles) the F-111B therefore had a load limit of 5.8 g and the F-14A (12,000 lbs of fuel and six Phoenix missiles), a lower (but not particularly constraining) 5.2 g. The result, however, is a somewhat lower structural weight for the F-14A.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46):
lso, the LO is VERY maintenance intensive. Its not like the old days of removing a panel, fix the problem and installing the panel. Removing and installing panels on stealth aircraft add a lot of time to the maintenance process. The F-35 and F-22 have more maintenance man hours per flight hour than the Super Hornet, Viper or Eagle.

F-35 does away with stealth coatings like on the F-22, B-2 and F-117. The stealth coating is instead baked directly into the skin of the aircraft in a stealth mat. There has been extensive durability studies of the F-35's skin to see how ordinary wear and tear and damage would do to the stealth signature, and to see how long the skin can last. Lockheed Martin, to make a point of how durable the skin is to wear and tear, actually has a piece of the stealth mat used as a floor mat at one of their labs and they occasionally pull it up and conduct tests to see how it fares. It can be argued that the F-22, B-2 and F-117 stealth coatings represent the first generation of stealth coatings. F-35's approach to stealth coatings represent the second generation of stealth coatings.

The biggest change with F-35's maintenance model is the switch from 'maintenance per schedule' to 'maintenance on demand'. The aircraft has a built in maintenance tracking system that can flag maintainers to fix problems as required while the jet is returning from a mission (say, as the aircraft is landing, the computer will uplink to the maintainer's computer systems and tell them that the F-35 returning right now is expected to require a oil change when it lands). ALIS will also capture data on the entire F-35 fleet and allows for pre-positioning of spare parts where they are needed and when using just-in-time logistics.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 40):
ll I was trying to inject is a little real-world input into the dicussion. No I haven't flown it and don't want to. I come from an Eagle and Raptor background, with 20 years of service. Again, am NOT saying the F-35 is a bad platform. What I AM saying is that the F-35 is not the second coming. Having flown against Viper and Hornets (both legacy and Super), I can tell you the Viper is a much better BFM foe, except for the slower fight (below 330KIAS) and at lower altitudes (Below 15-18K) where the hornet can point its nose better, but struggles to regain energy.

F-35 from what the pilots are saying is that it can turn like a F/A-18, but has the ability to retain and gain more energy. Remember, F-35 is designed for operating around the transonic range, and realistically, the only fighters that can match or beat the F-35's acceleration is a clean F-16 Block 50 or a F-22.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-10-05 03:48:56 and read 18773 times.

How many F22s would have been sold if there was no ban on sales? Japan and Australia really wanted it above the F35, that would have helped lower the frame cost for US Air Force as well. It´s not like its super alien tech anymore, maybe 10 years ago, but today others are catching up.

And why would the US not trust Japan and Australia with top notch tech? Have they ever been the least suspect like Israel has? Maybe Canada could have found a use for the F22 as well, long range patrols?

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-10-05 06:29:42 and read 18728 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
How many F22s would have been sold if there was no ban on sales? Japan and Australia really wanted it above the F35, that would have helped lower the frame cost for US Air Force as well. It´s not like its super alien tech anymore, maybe 10 years ago, but today others are catching up.

Australia never really wanted it. They had a vocal media segment that wanted it and they had a couple of politicians on their side. The F-22 does not really meet their needs either.

It would make sense for Japan I guess.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-05 06:40:35 and read 18733 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
Maybe Canada could have found a use for the F22 as well, long range patrols?

Just what Canada needs, a $250 million dollar air superiority fighter with poor reliability tooling around in the frozen Arctic. Ground radar is in place for a reason, no one does patrols any more.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wacopolumbo
Posted 2012-10-05 06:56:04 and read 18717 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
F-35 does away with stealth coatings like on the F-22, B-2 and F-117. The stealth coating is instead baked directly into the skin of the aircraft in a stealth mat. There has been extensive durability studies of the F-35's skin to see how ordinary wear and tear and damage would do to the stealth signature, and to see how long the skin can last. Lockheed Martin, to make a point of how durable the skin is to wear and tear, actually has a piece of the stealth mat used as a floor mat at one of their labs and they occasionally pull it up and conduct tests to see how it fares. It can be argued that the F-22, B-2 and F-117 stealth coatings represent the first generation of stealth coatings. F-35's approach to stealth coatings represent the second generation of stealth coatings.

The maintenance pains don't deal with coatings on the panels themselves.

[Edited 2012-10-05 07:21:08]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wacopolumbo
Posted 2012-10-05 07:11:20 and read 18728 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
F-35 from what the pilots are saying is that it can turn like a F/A-18, but has the ability to retain and gain more energy. Remember, F-35 is designed for operating around the transonic range, and realistically, the only fighters that can match or beat the F-35's acceleration is a clean F-16 Block 50 or a F-22.

What pilots? All the Canadian pilots flying the F-35? You're right, I give up. The guys I went to school with who are in the F-35 program must be misleading me. The F-35 is the best fighter ever and will be able to perform every mission better than any other platform.

By the way, every operational tactical fighter except for the F-22 is designed to operate in the transonic regime. However, I will "remember" your advice when I am working the F-22/F-35 joint employment standards for our community. I will be sure to check back here to read how I should employ the Raptor in a joint enviornment. After 20 years of flying Eagles and Raptors, I guess I should see if I can get into that fancy pig with wings...

You have highlighted the reason why I occasionally read things here and don't post. Since I had input to the OPs thread, I thought I would share, but I should have known that my real-world experience would be no match for folks who read stuff and repeat it as fact.

Good day and check six.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sovietjet
Posted 2012-10-05 08:17:06 and read 18706 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
long term lead items need to be ordered now otherwise the line is going to be shuttered in 2 years.

Long lead tools do not take 2 years to make. That's ridiculous.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
And it should be noted of the US fighters, the F/A-18 is the most maneuverable fighter in the US inventory.

Says who? Define maneuverability. I'm interested to see what stats are being used to define how maneuverable an aircraft is.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
F-35 is designed for the transonic regime while practically every other fighter designed (except for F-22) is designed for operating at subsonic speeds. They only visit the supersonic performance range and only briefly.

Transonic speed is roughly defined as between Mach 0.8-1.2 . Almost every fighter is designed for that. Hell, even commercial jetliners cruise at transonic speed. I seriously doubt the F-35 is designed to cruise at M1 as that would create unnecessary amounts of drag and increase fuel burn.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
You have highlighted the reason why I occasionally read things here and don't post. Since I had input to the OPs thread, I thought I would share, but I should have known that my real-world experience would be no match for folks who read stuff and repeat it as fact.

I've enjoyed reading your posts but the Canadian F-35 fanbo....ahem...experts, usually dominate these threads. Don't let that turn you away, this is a discussion forum after all. I like the F-35, but I don't blindly think it is the greatest fighter ever. The F-22 is still a better air-to-air platform. the A-10 still better at air-to-ground and CAS IMO . The Harrier is frankly the only plane the F-35 vastly outperforms.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-10-05 08:53:16 and read 18703 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
F-35 does away with stealth coatings like on the F-22, B-2 and F-117. The stealth coating is instead baked directly into the skin of the aircraft in a stealth mat. T

I'll give you that one, stealth coatings have definitely advanced in 30 or so years. Of course, so has radar technology and there is a rump of general staff officers who question the whole notion of stealth being an advantage if it is so expensive.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
The biggest change with F-35's maintenance model is the switch from 'maintenance per schedule' to 'maintenance on demand'.

Which only makes sense. maintenance to schedule is essentially make-work.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 55):
Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
Maybe Canada could have found a use for the F22 as well, long range patrols?

Just what Canada needs, a $250 million dollar air superiority fighter with poor reliability tooling around in the frozen Arctic. Ground radar is in place for a reason, no one does patrols any more.

Quite. Any overwatch required can be handled by Global Hawk.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
After 20 years of flying Eagles and Raptors, I guess I should see if I can get into that fancy pig with wings...

But tell us what you really think !  

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-05 10:57:26 and read 18657 times.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
I like the F-35, but I don't blindly think it is the greatest fighter ever.

I don't think that anyone who supports the F-35 thinks that.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
The F-22 is still a better air-to-air platform.

I sure hope it is, considering they spent all those Billions developing the thing as one. Now if the damn thing could only drop bombs it wouldn't be completely useless in today's world.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-10-05 12:35:12 and read 18633 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
How many F22s would have been sold if there was no ban on sales?

It would have been Japan, Australia, and then maybe Israel and a couple other wealthy Middle Eastern countries.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
After 20 years of flying Eagles and Raptors, I guess I should see if I can get into that fancy pig with wings...

There's nothing wrong with having a pig with wings unless you're trying to run a horse race. Like you said before, the one plane fits all idea has been tried before and didn't work so hot. The best planes are built for one purpose and expanded.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
I seriously doubt the F-35 is designed to cruise at M1 as that would create unnecessary amounts of drag and increase fuel burn.

That's basically the worst speed to cruise at. The Concorde would relight the afterburners to save fuel by spend less time in the transonic regime.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-10-05 19:13:10 and read 18552 times.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
Long lead tools do not take 2 years to make. That's ridiculous.

They do. Witness recent military aircraft purchases; the first contract for the ROKAF's F-15K's were signed in 2002 and first deliveries commenced in 2005; the RSAF's F-15SG's were first ordered in 2005, and first deliveries commenced in 2007; the RAAF's F/A-18E/F's were ordered 2007, with first deliveries in 2009; the PolAF's F-16 Block 52's were ordered in 2003, and deliveries commenced in 2006.

All four were in-production aircraft, and in the case of the F-15's, on a line that was essentially empty of orders.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
Transonic speed is roughly defined as between Mach 0.8-1.2 . Almost every fighter is designed for that. Hell, even commercial jetliners cruise at transonic speed. I seriously doubt the F-35 is designed to cruise at M1 as that would create unnecessary amounts of drag and increase fuel burn.

Most fighters are actually fully subsonic aircraft when loaded with ordinance. They only reach supersonic speeds under very specific configurations and they rarely if ever hit their top speeds. For example, the entire time the world F-15 fleet has ever spent anywhere near the rated top speed since the introduction of the F-15 can be measured in a few hours, as the F-15 can only reach its top speeds very lightly loaded, and usually under Functional Check Flights. In fact, the F-15 fleet has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span.

If you were to compare from a frontal aspect between a similarly loaded F-16 and a similarly loaded F-35, the F-35 will have a significant advantage in terms of how aerodynamically clean it is compared to the F-16.

What's important regarding F-35 is that it can hit its top speeds while carrying ordinance and a decent amount of fuel, much like the F-22 as it can carry ordinance internally, and can accelerate at a rate that is only matched by few aircraft.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
What pilots? All the Canadian pilots flying the F-35? You're right, I give up. The guys I went to school with who are in the F-35 program must be misleading me. The F-35 is the best fighter ever and will be able to perform every mission better than any other platform.

Would Lockheed Martin's chief test pilot mean anything to you? If you have concerns regarding F-35's performance, bring them up to John Beesley, who made these claims. If he has stuck his head out and said that the F-35 is at minimum, on par with an F-16, then I doubt he's lying.

Quote:

In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in "large measure like the F-22, but it's smaller, and stiffer" than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

I will point out that he would be very well qualified to evaluate aircraft performance; He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-10-05 19:29:33 and read 18543 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
Would Lockheed Martin's chief test pilot mean anything to you? If you have concerns regarding F-35's performance, bring them up to John Beesley, who made these claims. If he has stuck his head out and said that the F-35 is at minimum, on par with an F-16, then I doubt he's lying.

If not a shill for LockMart, Beesley is at least doing serious PR for the F-35. Ergo his statements need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor,

Which is where some of the buffet problems remain, I believe.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
I will point out that he would be very well qualified to evaluate aircraft performance; He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80.

I have no doubt Mr Beesley is a very well qualified pilot.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-10-05 20:13:25 and read 18547 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 63):
If not a shill for LockMart, Beesley is at least doing serious PR for the F-35. Ergo his statements need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I would also add the BAE test pilots as well to the mix; they are also very highly impressed with the F-35's ease of handling.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 63):
Which is where some of the buffet problems remain, I believe.

I will point out that the F-14, the F/A-18 and the F-15 all had buffeting problems, and they were resolved in one way or another; in the case of the F-14 for example, they just ignored the problem altogether during testing. The F/A-18's buffeting problems were extremely bad, and it caused severe structural life issues until it was resolved, FYI. Nothing new in terms of fighter development.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-10-06 01:13:24 and read 18516 times.

There was a RAF pilot that got to fly the raptor, now if he would get to fly the F35 as well we would have a nice impartial source   Off topic I saw that a french air force pilot flew a A-10 in Afghanistan, quite cool IMO.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: oykie
Posted 2012-10-06 05:24:39 and read 18471 times.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
You have highlighted the reason why I occasionally read things here and don't post. Since I had input to the OPs thread, I thought I would share, but I should have known that my real-world experience would be no match for folks who read stuff and repeat it as fact.

As the OP I have enjoyed you real-world experience comments. With the U.S. election one month away from today, this topic will stay relevant for some time.

Your input to this thread has also been suggested by FlightGlobal in this blog:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...omney-proposes-more-raptors-l.html

Quote:
source of mine, who has the resume to back-up what he says, once suggested that the US Air Force would have been better off buying the F-22 as its high-end fighter while filling the low-end of the fleet with new-build Block 60+ F-16s.

Simply, the USAF would be better off with a good number of highly capable Raptors that could take down an enemy's air and surface-based defenses while relatively low-cost (compared to the F-35) new-build F-16s could add some needed bulk to the fleet. The Navy, he had argued, has a modern fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with active electronically scanned array radars and other goodies... which offer excellent capability for the price. He had asked, would the USAF not be better off in 10 years with say 400-ish F-22s and 1000 new Block 60 F-16s?

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-10-06 11:19:44 and read 18421 times.

There is nothing to say that in 10 years, the F-22 could be certified to fly ground attack the same as the F-15 became the Strike Eagle... the majority of the changes would be software for dropping some iron.

If the F-35 gets axed, and the F-22 line starts to reopen, there will be shit storm over the cost to open the line again, on top of the still quite high price of the gen 4.5 fighters that need to be ordered.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-10-06 13:14:39 and read 18398 times.

From like 3 or 4000 aircraft to 182 F22 and some hundred F35s.. Quite the reduction for US Airforce?!

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-06 13:51:19 and read 18395 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 68):
From like 3 or 4000 aircraft to 182 F22 and some hundred F35s.. Quite the reduction for US Airforce?!

Reduction in numbers but an increase in capability. The days of 1000+ fleet of aircraft for the US is coming to an end.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-10-07 13:16:52 and read 18114 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 69):
Reduction in numbers but an increase in capability. The days of 1000+ fleet of aircraft for the US is coming to an end.



I think it will depend on the opposition, if China or Russia can amass 3000 fighters I think a few high tech fighters is as good as a white flag. The F35 IMO is not a top notch fighter, I bet gripen would run circles around it.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-10-07 17:39:40 and read 18052 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 70):
I think it will depend on the opposition, if China or Russia can amass 3000 fighters I think a few high tech fighters is as good as a white flag. The F35 IMO is not a top notch fighter, I bet gripen would run circles around it.

Are we staging an air show or conducting an air campaign here? I struggle to see how a fighter carrying a less advanced radar that is going to be far more visible at range is going to cope effectively with a fighter with a better radar, low observability and the advantage of being able to operate in a networked fashion with its squadron mates. I think we need to be honest with criticism of the F-35. It is relying heavily on its 360 degree sensor system to compensate for what will be good but not world class agility. But I think it is massively overstating it to say the F-35 is not a top notch fighter. If that is the case than what qualifies? The F-22 and only the F-22?

I would not want to mess with an F-35 in a legacy airplane (non-lo) under any but the most favorable circumstances.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-07 20:09:23 and read 18027 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 70):
The F35 IMO is not a top notch fighter, I bet gripen would run circles around it.

The UK, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Singapore and now Japan all disagree. If the Gripen is such a great fighter then why doesn't anyone buy it?

Quoting sweair (Reply 70):
I think it will depend on the opposition, if China or Russia can amass 3000 fighters I think a few high tech fighters is as good as a white flag.

This is assuming 100% availability. All the US would have to do is take out the runways and then what. 100 or less Tomahawk missiles and all those numbers mean nothing.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: FBWless
Posted 2012-10-08 05:38:53 and read 17919 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 72):
The UK, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Singapore and now Japan all disagree. If the Gripen is such a great fighter then why doesn't anyone buy it?

Anyone? Try South Africa, Thailand and Czech R & Hungary as leases. Switzerland and Croatia are close to deals. Add to this the political influence and domestic market needed to design and manufacture 4G (and above) fighters. What other country of the size of Sweden has this ability? Maybe Canada?? As Sweden is a tiny political player in the world, Gripen has only its capability expressed as gain times price to warrant its existence. Sure there are other fighters with higher gains, but at what price?

Norwegian politicians and military had to lie about projected price of the F-35 and falsify Gripen capability (as well as trash talking the Gripen) to sell it to the public. That decision was so biased even EF pulled out early from the competition. The only positive outcome for SAAB was that the Gripen NG demonstrator could be built.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-10-08 16:20:30 and read 17792 times.

Quoting FBWless (Reply 73):
Add to this the political influence and domestic market needed to design and manufacture 4G (and above) fighters. What other country of the size of Sweden has this ability? Maybe Canada?? As Sweden is a tiny political player in the world, Gripen has only its capability expressed as gain times price to warrant its existence. Sure there are other fighters with higher gains, but at what price?

Couple of problems:
1. Europe's fighter aviation industry is on the decline. SAAB, Dassault, BAE, all don't have a 5th generation fighter in development. It is expected that without a 5th generation fighter, the Europeans are going to struggle to stay alive in the fighter business. In all likelihood at least one, and likely two of the three will be effectively out of business by 2020. Saab will almost certainly disappear, followed by either Dassault, or the Eurofighter consortium (and it is most likely the Eurofighter consortium, as one of its participants, BAE is looking towards a merger with Airbus).

2. The Gripen as it exists today is simply nothing special. It is a modern but very small airframe with a minimal radar and EW suite. It has a datalink and more or less all of the other features one would expect in a passably modern 4th generation aircraft, but it isn't a world beater in any respect. It is small and cheap. It is reliant on the US for its engines, BVR weapon, and other key technologies which means it will always be competing head to head with the F-16, and as history has demonstrated, almost always losing.

The Gripen NG concept is a pretty impressive attempt to bring what is currently a more or less standard 4th generation aircraft up to the nebulous 4.5 generation level. It is essentially taking the Super Hornet approach to the Gripen. Grow the airframe, add fuel, add thrust, add an AESA and other modern avionics. The end result would be a nifty little plane, but one that would arrive on the scene rather late. It also has that one little issue of not actually having been ordered by anyone. There are a lot of concept planes floating around out there and most of them never get built. If the Gripen NG is going to become anything more than a footnote in history someone needs to come forward with enough cash to order 100+ of them.

Quoting FBWless (Reply 73):
Norwegian politicians and military had to lie about projected price of the F-35 and falsify Gripen capability (as well as trash talking the Gripen) to sell it to the public. That decision was so biased even EF pulled out early from the competition. The only positive outcome for SAAB was that the Gripen NG demonstrator could be built.

There are bigger forces at play, one that affects Sweden. The Norwegian defence contractor Kongsberg, is now currently in the final development stages on a new fifth generation SSM ( Naval Strike Missile). They intend to compete internationally against Sweden in the SSM market, and try to push Sweden out of the market. Kongsberg has been developing a version of the NSM for internal carriage on F-35 (the Joint Strike Missile) with Lockheed Martin as the standard anti-shipping missile for F-35.
Obviously this has big ramifications; not only did Sweden lose a export customer for Gripen, but they will be facing a significant threat to their market for a huge share of the market for SSMs.

In addition, the Norwegian government is also very keen for Nammo to take a large portion of the market for ammunition for the F-35's 25mm gun as well.

Considering the planned procurement numbers for F-35, and the multitude of export and partner customers for F-35, it is not surprising that the weapon industry in Norway made a significant push for F-35.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wvsuperhornet
Posted 2012-10-08 17:28:23 and read 17784 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):
Build another 200 for the Airforce - scrap the F35 and build another 1,000 or so F16's and restart A10 production while your at it for the Marines to replace the F-35B.

The A-10 was cut due to several cost over runs even worse than the F-35. The best option was to build a new and improved F-14 but was scrapped for political reasons, building and F-22 Naval verison is way too costly and would never be approved thats why it wasn't in the first place. Do I think we need to build more F-22's no, its no longer functional when Regan revived the B-1 a more improved and viable option was already on the table. There is no other options that have been worked on for the F-22, what it boils down to is the DOD put all of its eggs in 2 baskets by the same company and its now costing everyone. Realistically the aircraft we have no for the foreseable future are more than capable of handling any threats. For the long term they need to go back to the drawing board and design a new fighter. The F-35 (and you can say whatever you want) is an over costa nd over bloated F-16. The F-22 is a fantastic plane that is too difficult and expensive to operate is its only down fall. The F-35 "IS NOT" as capable as the F-22 and never will be. The F-23 proposed by Boeing and northrop grumman was the more viable option.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
People like the F-22 mostly due to fanboism. Never-mind facts.

But yet you two guys from Canada know more about the aircraft than a guys who worked on one. Go figure.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-10-08 17:45:22 and read 17767 times.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The A-10 was cut due to several cost over runs even worse than the F-35.

Still I think it is worth revisiting. Not the mention that the Air Force really doesn't have any love for the A-10. They'd just as soon get rid of them in favor of something faster.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The best option was to build a new and improved F-14 but was scrapped for political reasons,

That's what the Super Hornet could have been had the A-12 not been scrapped. When that happened they had to start making compromises.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The F-35 (and you can say whatever you want) is an over costa nd over bloated F-16.

To be fair, it's also far more capable. I find the whole idea of the JSF misguided and think the F-35 could have been a better overall package had it been designed more as an F-16 replacement than a catch-all airframe for everyone.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The F-23 proposed by Boeing and northrop grumman was the more viable option.

It was also more risky if I remember correctly. I haven't looked at it in too much detail, but I don't see how the F-23 would have rectified many of the shortcomings of the F-22.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sovietjet
Posted 2012-10-08 19:03:23 and read 17853 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
In fact, the F-15 fleet has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span.

Isn't the F-15 fleet now limited to M1.6?

Quoting sweair (Reply 70):
I think it will depend on the opposition, if China or Russia can amass 3000 fighters

If you think America has too few planes then you should really take a closer look at Russia's air force. They don't even have 1500 aircraft of ALL types now with the latest severe cuts these past couple of years....let alone fighters. The Navy's air fleet is in shambles and barely has anything left now.

Second, even if China has 3000 fighters I 100% guarantee you there simply cannot be a 3000 aircraft vs 100 F-22s battle. It would be impossible to stage that many aircraft. Where would they even take off from?

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-10-08 22:03:31 and read 17801 times.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 77):
Isn't the F-15 fleet now limited to M1.6?

Pretty much... cracks and metal fatigue have taken their toll on the F-15 fleet.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 77):
Second, even if China has 3000 fighters I 100% guarantee you there simply cannot be a 3000 aircraft vs 100 F-22s battle. It would be impossible to stage that many aircraft. Where would they even take off from?

Indeed. Not enough airfields in China to launch that many aircraft close to their borders... now imagine a number of those airfields unusable due to heavy attacks on them...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
Still I think it is worth revisiting. Not the mention that the Air Force really doesn't have any love for the A-10. They'd just as soon get rid of them in favor of something faster.

The A-10s production line is *gone*. And you can be certain that if we built more today they'd cost a HELL of a lot more. It won't be like the first A-10 off the line with limited avionics; they are going to want to install all of the upgrades from the -C upgrade from the beginning. Add the costs to restart product, and you'd be *lucky* if it came in at less than $50 million.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
To be fair, it's also far more capable. I find the whole idea of the JSF misguided and think the F-35 could have been a better overall package had it been designed more as an F-16 replacement than a catch-all airframe for everyone.

To be fair, F-35 is going to be far more capable than the initial versions of the F-16. The first F-16's were essentially day fighters; no BVR capability, some dumb bombs at best. F-35 is going to IOC at a level very similar to the Block 30's (in terms of structural & avionics changes). The DoD decided to look at what it wanted the F-35 to do, what it needed, and went directly to Blk3 instead of a stripped down Blk1 (ala F-16A). This will obviously take longer but will save money in the long run due to not having the need to upgrade all those Blk1/2 airframes.

The plan for the F-35 is Hardware upgrades every two Blocks (starting with Blk2). These are called tech refreshes (TRs). So Even Blocks comprise a TR & Software and Odd Blocks are Software only (with small hardware upgrades where needed). With the F-35, it's easier to upgrade the aircraft one already has as opposed to the parking old ones in the desert as B/C/D/E/F/G variants come off the line.

[Edited 2012-10-08 22:50:50]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-10-11 21:47:31 and read 17338 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 78):
It won't be like the first A-10 off the line with limited avionics; they are going to want to install all of the upgrades from the -C upgrade from the beginning. Add the costs to restart product, and you'd be *lucky* if it came in at less than $50 million.

Compared to what the F-35 will cost and considering how well the A-10 does its job, I'd take that deal. I'd even take it if it came in somewhat more than that.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 78):
To be fair, F-35 is going to be far more capable than the initial versions of the F-16. The first F-16's were essentially day fighters; no BVR capability, some dumb bombs at best.

That's exactly my point: the F-16 was built with a singular mission in mind and was able to do that mission very well and also grew into something much more well rounded. Same with the F-15: all that talk of "not a pound for air to ground" didn't do a whole lot to stop the F-15E.

Generally, the best planes are designed to perform one job exceptionally well and then grown out from there. Designing a plane from day one to be all things to all people leads to a lot of costs and compromises.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-10-11 22:15:09 and read 17352 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 79):
Compared to what the F-35 will cost and considering how well the A-10 does its job, I'd take that deal. I'd even take it if it came in somewhat more than that.

However, the A-10 is a one trick pony. All it can do is ground attack, and while it was okay to have one trick ponies during the Cold War, we don't have the manpower resources to support having singular mission aircraft for every mission.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 79):

That's exactly my point: the F-16 was built with a singular mission in mind and was able to do that mission very well and also grew into something much more well rounded. Same with the F-15: all that talk of "not a pound for air to ground" didn't do a whole lot to stop the F-15E.

Generally, the best planes are designed to perform one job exceptionally well and then grown out from there. Designing a plane from day one to be all things to all people leads to a lot of costs and compromises.

Actually, the F-16 grew from the YF-16. The YF-16 was designed to be a single mission day fighter.

It should be noted that the USAF procured the F-16 as a fighter-bomber, in contradiction to its initial plans for the LWF as a lightweight day fighter. As a result, the F-16 was modified from the YF-16 in mind to be a multirole aircraft, but the initial versions of the F-16 lacked the capabilities that later blocks of the F-16 had. Through various blocks, MSIP stages, and OCU's, they progressively added more capabilities while parking older variants.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-10-11 22:38:43 and read 17322 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 80):
However, the A-10 is a one trick pony.

And it does an extraordinary job of it. The F-35 in a similar mission would be more vulnerable and not be in a position to utilize its low observable characteristics or ultramodern sensors which drive a significant portion of the costs.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 80):
All it can do is ground attack,

Which happens to be exactly what the USMC needs.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-10-11 23:39:44 and read 17324 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 81):
And it does an extraordinary job of it. The F-35 in a similar mission would be more vulnerable and not be in a position to utilize its low observable characteristics or ultramodern sensors which drive a significant portion of the costs.

The A-10 will not fare well against a opponent with decent integrated air defence system. For the opponents and battles it has been sent in on, there was either negligible or very low risks to the aircraft.

The F-35 on a similar mission would be better able to take advantage of its sensors to get a better picture of the battlefield so the pilot can better plan their attacks. It also helps the the warfighters on the ground as you now have a eye in the sky that will provide superior situational awareness of the area around him.

With a 360 degree field of view from sensors, and supercomputer++ processing power, a human being piloting an airplane will never approach the F-35s see-all capability. All it takes to fool a human being is for someone to hide under some brush, or to hide a SAM under some form of camouflage. A F-35 can see a missile launch from a very long way away and pinpoint where it was launched. It can then pass the information along to other F-35's operating in the area, compare sensor information between all of them, and cooperatively engage a target, which of course is the real advance in the F-35: the fusion of sensors and platforms to maximize the usefulness of the information each sensor gathers. An A-10 will never do that.

I will point out that flying low and slow with the Mark 1 eyeball will not always allow you to reliably find targets. I will point out there is an instance during Gulf War II, 5 pairs of UK-issue Mk-1 eyeballs (3 on a Lynx and 2 on a Gazelle) were nearly at a loss to locate and neutralize a single Iraqi T-55 that was very happily taking potshots at the former, despite flying low and slow outside of Basra. The F-35's IR sensors may not detect targets, if the moisture content obscures signatures, but its SAR/GMTI should be able to see them. If one of these obscured weapon systems opens fire, then the EODAS will see that, and then all other F-35's in the area, will know the location. And if the F-35's sensors cannot find a target, then no Mark 1 eyeball will find the target.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 81):
Which happens to be exactly what the USMC needs.

The F-35 program was brought into existence in the first place because of budgetary limitations. Nobody doubts that in a perfect world a half dozen different specialized aircraft would be better.

In the real world we don't have the money to develop and sustain these hypothetical new designs and on the fastest possible timeline they would only be available sometime in the 2020s. (Depending how much concurrency, reliance on models and simulation, and risk you are willing to accept... )

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-10-12 00:51:45 and read 17313 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
The A-10 will not fare well against a opponent with decent integrated air defence system.

You mean the ones the F-35 should have wiped out on the first day of the war?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
A F-35 can see a missile launch from a very long way away and pinpoint where it was launched.

A-10s don't work and get shot at from a long way away. There isn't much stealth that's going to be useful against an enemy looking into the sky and seeing a plane.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
A F-35 can see a missile launch from a very long way away and pinpoint where it was launched. It can then pass the information along to other F-35's operating in the area, compare sensor information between all of them, and cooperatively engage a target, which of course is the real advance in the F-35: the fusion of sensors and platforms to maximize the usefulness of the information each sensor gathers. An A-10 will never do that.

I'm not saying that the A-10 avionics and sensors shouldn't be upgraded. But along with the useful sensors, the F-35 is always going to be carrying a lot of sensors and equipment that is useless for a given mission.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
The F-35 program was brought into existence in the first place because of budgetary limitations.

...and we can see how that turned out. Not that much better than the last time we tried the one size fits all approach. Maybe next time we'll figure it out and skip right to the more capable platforms with fewer compromises.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-10-12 02:39:28 and read 17272 times.

Who thinks the F35 would do a better job of CAS in Afghanistan than the A10? The F35 will have to be very good at 5 or 6 different roles, with one platform.. Call me a sceptic..

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-10-12 10:13:45 and read 17177 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 74):
Europe's fighter aviation industry is on the decline. SAAB, Dassault, BAE, all don't have a 5th generation fighter in development.

Indeed, but:

Quote:

BAE produces the aft fuselage, tails, fins, electronic warfare system, and various other sub-systems for the F-35 Lightning II

so I think they have skin in the game.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 74):
Saab will almost certainly disappear, followed by either Dassault, or the Eurofighter consortium

Adapt or die. Find a new challenge, like building a high capability UAV at a significantly lower price point than the US gold plated models.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The F-22 is a fantastic plane that is too difficult and expensive to operate is its only down fall.

It has flaws beyond these, and the expense one is the one that is going to be its downfall.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The A-10 was cut due to several cost over runs even worse than the F-35.

Still I think it is worth revisiting. Not the mention that the Air Force really doesn't have any love for the A-10. They'd just as soon get rid of them in favor of something faster.

Ok, what are we talking about, A-10 or A-12?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
When that happened they had to start making compromises.

Reality is that more compromises will be coming.

There's only so far the "paying the price of freedom" rhetoric will go.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-10-12 11:25:52 and read 17167 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
The A-10 will not fare well against a opponent with decent integrated air defence system. For the opponents and battles it has been sent in on, there was either negligible or very low risks to the aircraft.

The F-35 on a similar mission would be better able to take advantage of its sensors to get a better picture of the battlefield so the pilot can better plan their attacks. It also helps the the warfighters on the ground as you now have a eye in the sky that will provide superior situational awareness of the area around him.

Current display issue of AIR International has a lengthy feature on F-35, using pilot and mx crew interviews, as well as commentary from defense analysts. Of course the pilots defend the a/c. However, Pierre Sprey, Pentagon analyst, says "the aircraft has sluggish performance" and in a dogfight "would be destroyed by something like a MiG-21". As well, Sprey says "as a CAS platform, F-35 is laughable".

USMC Col Arthur "Turbo" Tomassetti, #2 in 33rd FW, concedes that compared to F-35, a mission-specific a/c will outperform it. Vol 83, #4, ppg 44-49.

These guys make their living at this, their opinions count for something.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
The F-35 program was brought into existence in the first place because of budgetary limitations. Nobody doubts that in a perfect world a half dozen different specialized aircraft would be better.

Yes, well that has worked out well, hasn't it ?

Quoting sweair (Reply 84):
Who thinks the F35 would do a better job of CAS in Afghanistan than the A10? The F35 will have to be very good at 5 or 6 different roles, with one platform.. Call me a sceptic..

Count me in.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-10-12 13:56:57 and read 17118 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
Ok, what are we talking about, A-10 or A-12?

I was talking about the A-10, but my thoughts on the A-12 are pretty well established at this point.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-10-12 14:58:41 and read 17100 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 86):
However, Pierre Sprey, Pentagon analyst, says "the aircraft has sluggish performance" and in a dogfight "would be destroyed by something like a MiG-21". As well, Sprey says "as a CAS platform, F-35 is laughable".

Sprey is not with the Pentagon anymore I don't believe and has not been for a long time. Frankly...and I recognize the guy had value at one point...he is bonkers. His ideas about what the F-16 should have been were laughable and he was pitching his doom and gloom before the 1st Gulf War. He is a guy who wants lots of cheap planes that point their nose quickly, beyond that I am not sure what he is contributing to the discussion anymore.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...February%202008/0208reformers.aspx

I think that article is pretty telling on how extreme his group really was. They opposed the majority of the weapons that decisively won the 1st Gulf War.

On the CAS issue I would say it very much depends on what you are being asked to do. I would guess that for 90% of the missions the A-10 would be asked to do with Mavericks, LGB's, SDB's and Cluster Bombs the F-35 would be its equal or better at employing those weapons in a CAS environment. There will be a few missions the F-35 can't do as well, but as others have said, that is the price of a smaller defense budget. There is no way that straight replacements for the F-16, A-10, Harrier and F-18 would have been cheaper overall than the F-35. It would have been significantly more expensive. The downside of that is going to be a few compromises.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-12 17:21:40 and read 17073 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 86):
However, Pierre Sprey, Pentagon analyst, says

Stopped reading after that.

Overall, I find it laughable that civilians are putting in their    regarding CAS and other military matters. You are not the experts (nor am I for that matter). There are always people who bitch and complain whenever there is a new military program.

Quoting sweair (Reply 84):
Who thinks the F35 would do a better job of CAS in Afghanistan than the A10?

The reality is, it doesn't matter what you think - that's not attacking you personally its just what it is. If you think you can do a better job fighting wars then I suggest you go enlist and make it up high enough in rank where you can start changing things. Until then, CAS will be handled by the professionals. They won't be using equipment that they think is not up to the task. If the F35 wasn't meeting combat performance goals set out by the DOD it would've been axed a long time ago. It's not the piece of crap everyone would like to think it is.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-10-12 19:21:46 and read 17031 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
so I think they have skin in the game.

It has been argued that at best these companies will be parts suppliers to larger OEM's across the pond.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):

You mean the ones the F-35 should have wiped out on the first day of the war?

While you can eliminated a good chunk of enemy air defences, you can't eliminate them all. Had we faced a opponent in Afghanistan and Iraq that was better equipped and more motivated, we would have lost a lot more A-10's. The Package Q Strike during Gulf War I is a clear reminder that despite achieving air superiority over a opponent, a well equipped enemy still has the ability to maul and inflict significant harm to your forces.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
A-10s don't work and get shot at from a long way away. There isn't much stealth that's going to be useful against an enemy looking into the sky and seeing a plane.

Unless the aircraft is flying high, and can still make out and determine targets from a higher altitude. Remember the majority of armour kills for the A-10 occurred using the Maverick missile, not the gun due to the very high Iraqi AAA threat.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
I'm not saying that the A-10 avionics and sensors shouldn't be upgraded. But along with the useful sensors, the F-35 is always going to be carrying a lot of sensors and equipment that is useless for a given mission.

Situational awareness is the game for F-35. Being able to use all of its sensors to put together a picture of the battlefield around him will allow the pilot to better coordinate his strikes in a quick and timely fashion, and allow mission planners to better allocate assets.

It will be a long while until other aircraft get the same level of sensor fusion and networking capabilities as F-35.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
...and we can see how that turned out. Not that much better than the last time we tried the one size fits all approach. Maybe next time we'll figure it out and skip right to the more capable platforms with fewer compromises.

Cheaper than developing 3-4 separate platforms. At least with F-35, there is some commonality in systems and there the scale of production.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-10-13 06:29:17 and read 16929 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 89):
Overall, I find it laughable that civilians are putting in their regarding CAS and other military matters. You are not the experts (nor am I for that matter).

Fine to criticize others as not being experts but still offering opinions. But if you admit you yourself are not an expert, then why are you still offering opinions ? Just a thought ...

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: oykie
Posted 2012-10-31 12:27:17 and read 15522 times.

Hi all,

Just wanted to update you on this issue. According to the last week Aviation Week, (October 22nd 2012, page 22) Romney has shifted his stance on the fighter jet.

According to this article former Pentagon controller and Romney campaign defense maven, Dov Zakheim, adjusted the message in favor of the F-35. To quote the article:

Quote:
But now, officially, Romney is keeping his options open when it comes to the Air Force's future fleet of tactical fighters. "Governor Romney is committed to maintaining American airpower that is second to none," campaign representative Andrea Saul tells Aviation Week, "He will keep any option to ensure our airmen are flying planes worthy of the incredible mission the perform on our behalf"

The latest statement is worthless of course as it does not commit Romney to anything at all. But the Doc Zakheim comment is more firm that the F-22 might be off the table. 

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-10-31 19:34:00 and read 15375 times.

Quoting oykie (Reply 92):
According to the last week Aviation Week, (October 22nd 2012, page 22) Romney has shifted his stance on the fighter jet.

Doesn't make a difference, Obama will win.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-11-01 08:32:26 and read 15158 times.

What role is the best of the many roles the F35 has. Is it a good bomber or fighter? Or is it just ok in any role? The F22 is mostly a fighter and I guess a good one.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: HaveBlue
Posted 2012-11-01 10:26:26 and read 15101 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 93):
Doesn't make a difference, Obama will win.

You don't know that, and it'd be much better not have any superfluous political rhetoric in this thread... from either side.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-11-01 11:01:47 and read 15106 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 94):
What role is the best of the many roles the F35 has. Is it a good bomber or fighter?

The F-35 can easily match current F/A-18s for flight performance. The F-35 is the low part of the F-22/F-35 hi/lo mix... it was never ment to be an air dominance fighter, that is the F-22s job. Throw in stealth and the other electronic goodies, it has a large advantage over the F/A-18.

As stated, it will make a good fighter, and a good attack bomber, but not excellent at either.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: wvsuperhornet
Posted 2012-11-01 22:05:45 and read 14962 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 96):
The F-35 can easily match current F/A-18s for flight performance. The F-35 is the low part of the F-22/F-35 hi/lo mix... it was never ment to be an air dominance fighter, that is the F-22s job. Throw in stealth and the other electronic goodies, it has a large advantage over the F/A-18.

As stated, it will make a good fighter, and a good attack bomber, but not excellent at either.

Thats the problem with the F-35 its not excellent at either and was designed to work with the F-22, the problem is the F-22 was cut to 186 and now the US has to rely on the the F-35 for most of the combat missions. I believe thats why nobody has any faith in the F-35 and I am one of them. 186 air superiority fights is not enough for the US I don't care how good the aircraft is. The F-35 won't be able to fill the role.

[Edited 2012-11-01 22:07:07]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: checksixx
Posted 2012-11-02 04:41:01 and read 14909 times.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 97):
186 air superiority fights is not enough for the US I don't care how good the aircraft is.

Kind of why we still have the F-15C/D/E's around, not to mention the F-16's and F-18C/D/E/F's...I'm pretty sure we have good coverage.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-11-02 07:08:01 and read 14869 times.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 98):
not to mention the F-16's and F-18C/D/E/F's...I'm pretty sure we have good coverage.

F-16s and F/A-18s (any make) are not air superiority fighters.

The F-35 is a compromise. It is indeed better than 4.5 gen fighters, but it is not a F-22.


Would such a compromise of a fighter have worked in the 70s or 80s... no, but back then large fleets of specialized fighters were needed. Today, modern fighter forces are pretty much for putting out little flare-ups. 500 specialized strike bombers will be of limited usefulness in modern times.

If a F-35 came up against the best fighters out there, it could probably hold its own, but not completely out class a foe, but that is where a F-22 would be used.

186 is a somewhat small number for the F-22, but what is out there to challenge it? There is little out there that can challenge the current 4.5 gen force... a full 5th gen force will be unmatched for years. Worse comes to worst, there is a reason the F-22 jigs are in storage and not scrapped.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-11-02 08:34:39 and read 14851 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 96):
it was never ment to be an air dominance fighter,

See I don't buy that. It may not turn as quick as the F-22 but besides that I don't see why it can't dominate the sky vs. other 4.5gen aircraft. Its avionics and systems are far superior, not to mention all the goodies it has that are still classified. The public doesn't, or need, to know all the capabilities about this aircraft.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: neutronstar73
Posted 2012-11-02 09:13:10 and read 14845 times.

No way Romney would get that production line restarted. We have no money to do so, the USAF would rather replace other, older aircraft that need to be retired, and we should already be looking at the next generation of fighter aircraft, if there even will be a next generation.

F-22 is nice, but at this point in time, you really don't need more nor can we afford it.

Besides, Romney is all talk, and he will say whatever the audience he is speaking to wants to hear. You really have no clue what that guy's position is or is not.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-11-02 10:56:44 and read 15211 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 100):
See I don't buy that.

Well, that is what is being said by the pilots... and maybe that is just a line being fed as dis-information, but IMO worst case scenario is that it can match a most current fighters in a turning fight. I have read it has a lot more power in acceleration.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: FSXJunkie
Posted 2012-11-02 12:54:36 and read 15189 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 100):
See I don't buy that. It may not turn as quick as the F-22 but besides that I don't see why it can't dominate the sky vs. other 4.5gen aircraft. Its avionics and systems are far superior, not to mention all the goodies it has that are still classified. The public doesn't, or need, to know all the capabilities about this aircraft.

The F-35 is slower than the F-22, Mach ~1.5+ vs. Mach 2.[Classified]

Zoom and Boom always beats Turn and Burn, the thing about the F-35 is that it's a jack of all trades and a master of none and it won't be as capable in any single mission/role than a more specialist airframe.

In an aerial superiority role the F-35 will be up against Mach 2 MiG's and Suhkoi's, the stealth advantage will be marginalized as OpFor fighters will be able to close distance faster than the F-35 can effectively evade. It may take a couple air battles for OpFor to refine tactics, but the F-35's will show their inferiorities in spades.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-11-02 16:28:51 and read 15108 times.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
The F-35 is slower than the F-22, Mach ~1.5 vs. Mach 2.[Classified]

This means nothing in the real world. When was the last time a fighter needed to break Mach 1 in areal combat?

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
Zoom and Boom always beats Turn and Burn,

That is what the F35 has over its predecessors and Russian adversaries. Stealth and an avionics package that can't be matched.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
it won't be as capable in any single mission/role than a more specialist airframe.

Who says it won't be as capable in A/A or A/G? The F-15 was also criticized being it ever saw duty - now everyone thinks its the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its the circle of life... there will always be more armchair quarterbacks than real QBs. After the cancellation of the F-22 the F-35 is the saving grace for the US Military.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
In an aerial superiority role the F-35 will be up against Mach 2 MiG's and Suhkoi's, the stealth advantage will be marginalized as OpFor fighters will be able to close distance faster than the F-35 can effectively evade. It may take a couple air battles for OpFor to refine tactics, but the F-35's will show their inferiorities in spades.

This is assuming MiG or Suhkoi operators can get their shit together and have serviceable, combat ready and flying units. Not just airshow squadrons. I also question the flight hours of non-NATO country pilots. Seat time is everything and the US and its allies fly more than anyone. The only thing the F35 will show is its ass-end to her ignorant critics and everyone else in the "media".

[Edited 2012-11-02 16:29:34]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-11-02 19:40:37 and read 15047 times.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
The F-35 is slower than the F-22, Mach ~1.5+ vs. Mach 2.[Classified]

When was the last time a fully combat loaded fighter reached top speed and was able to use that speed?

The amount of time the worldwide fleet of F-15's spent anywhere near its top speed is about as long as a typical movie, FYI. And that's with close to 40 years of service. Ditto the F-16, F/A-18, F-14... need I go on?

No combat jet fighter (save for F-35 and F-22 so far) has been able to hit anywhere near the top rated speed combat loaded. Too much parasitic drag emanating from externally mounted weapons, fuel tanks and pods to do that. In fact, many fighters are technically subsonic fighters with weapons.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
Zoom and Boom always beats Turn and Burn, the thing about the F-35 is that it's a jack of all trades and a master of none and it won't be as capable in any single mission/role than a more specialist airframe.

We have been moving to multipurpose airframes for decades. The F-16 and the F/A-18 are very successful examples.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
In an aerial superiority role the F-35 will be up against Mach 2 MiG's and Suhkoi's, the stealth advantage will be marginalized as OpFor fighters will be able to close distance faster than the F-35 can effectively evade. It may take a couple air battles for OpFor to refine tactics, but the F-35's will show their inferiorities in spades.

If they can see F-35 in the first place before F-35's take the first shot... against a non-stealthy opponent, F-35 will see the opposing aircraft well over a 100 miles away. At best opposing fighters will start detecting F-35 with their sensors much, much, closer in, and they would already be fired upon by F-35's putting them on the defensive. AIM-120 has one of the largest no-escape zones of any BVR missile available, and F-35 will take advantage of that to significantly cut into the ability of a enemy aircraft to effectively respond.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-11-02 20:30:27 and read 15044 times.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
In an aerial superiority role the F-35 will be up against Mach 2 MiG's and Suhkoi's, the stealth advantage will be marginalized as OpFor fighters will be able to close distance faster than the F-35 can effectively evade. It may take a couple air battles for OpFor to refine tactics, but the F-35's will show their inferiorities in spades.

Again, the F-35 has had plenty of cost issues (like almost every major program seems to anymore) but this is just kind of silly. I love hearing about these hypothetical mobbing tactics that will be used to overwhelm the F-35 or F-22 but they are really just fantasy land. A few points specific to this.

1. None of the 4.5 generation fighters are really going to operate for any appreciable length of time at speeds faster than the F-35. The speeds you quote are on full afterburner power and can be sustained for just a few minutes.

2. I am not really sure that you want to go chasing full bore after a group of F-35's with legacy fighters. They will be able to engage you before you can effectively engage them. You are not likely going to be able to swamp them nor close the distance all that much before you have to evade weapons yourself. Unless you are in a suicide attack mode and everyone is headed in full tilt regardless of if they are being engaged it is a lot harder to close the range than you seem to think.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-11-02 20:37:41 and read 15079 times.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
Zoom and Boom always beats Turn and Burn,

That is funny, because the F-35s acceleration is actually one of its stronger points. Also, not dragged down by external stores, it will do things only a clean 4.5 gen fighter could consider doing.

So, I will see an opponent first, get a shot off first, if need be, get the hell out of Dodge faster... must be a lemon.


I look forward to the results of F-22 vs F-35 training encounters. I bet you will see the F-22 kill ratio take a bit of a hit.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-11-02 22:22:06 and read 15057 times.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 106):
Again, the F-35 has had plenty of cost issues (like almost every major program seems to anymore) but this is just kind of silly. I love hearing about these hypothetical mobbing tactics that will be used to overwhelm the F-35 or F-22 but they are really just fantasy land. A few points specific to this.

1. None of the 4.5 generation fighters are really going to operate for any appreciable length of time at speeds faster than the F-35. The speeds you quote are on full afterburner power and can be sustained for just a few minutes.

2. I am not really sure that you want to go chasing full bore after a group of F-35's with legacy fighters. They will be able to engage you before you can effectively engage them. You are not likely going to be able to swamp them nor close the distance all that much before you have to evade weapons yourself. Unless you are in a suicide attack mode and everyone is headed in full tilt regardless of if they are being engaged it is a lot harder to close the range than you seem to think.

Indeed, mission planners will think ahead and plan accordingly to counter such mobbing tactics.

The strength of the F-35 isn’t the one airplane and what it can do. The strength of the F-35 is the group of airplanes and what they can do together. There is a sensor fusion that takes all the eyes and ears of the airplane and converges them all onto the display on the dash. Not only is the information displayed in your cockpit, but you can also transfer it to the F-35 next to you using data links, rather than radio communication. It creates a flying network out in the battle space, with every F-35 taking in information provided by other F-35's and its own sensors and merging them into a unified picture. Not only will every F-35 be able to see the entire battlefield, but each F-35 will also be able to see the state of each other's aircraft, from what weapons he actually has, and the amount of fuel he has left in real time.

With every F-35 pilot being able to maintain a strong sense of situational awareness, they can concentrate on performing their mission rather than having to be on the constant look out, and they can make better decisions with the more information they have on hand. Not only that, F-35 pilots don't have to fly in close formation and flying on the defensive because of the better sensors and the sensor fusion present. They can fly much further away from each other, which has the side effect of allowing a smaller number of F-35's to cover more space with their sensors.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: kurtverbose
Posted 2016-04-21 01:27:54 and read 6051 times.

Article in flightglobal about re-starting production: -

US lawmakers want cost data for building 194 more F-22s

I think it makes sense. They don't have enough to replace their existing inventory so are reliant on the F-35. A new fighter would cost billions more and take at least 15 years.

I just think they should invest a little more and use the F-35 engines(which is a derivative of the F-22 engine anyway), radar updates, and also an air to ground capability.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-21 04:50:59 and read 5848 times.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 109):

I think it makes sense. They don't have enough to replace their existing inventory so are reliant on the F-35. A new fighter would cost billions more and take at least 15 years

I don't think it does. The cost benefit is just not there, particularly given how cheap the F-35s will be by 2020. The money would be better spent maturing 6th gen technology.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 109):

I just think they should invest a little more and use the F-35 engines(which is a derivative of the F-22 engine anyway), radar updates, and also an air to ground capability.

Those changes add significant time to any new production, setting aside the fact that none of the original computer components exist anymore anyway. The F135 also wouldn't work in the F-22 without major redesign and given the alterations made it would not be an optimal engine probably reducing supercruise ability.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: neutronstar73
Posted 2016-04-21 05:51:02 and read 5774 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 110):

Agree. The money spent trying to adapt the F135 to the F-22 would be prohibitive, and any restart in F-22 production will require the money to come from somewhere, most likely the recently started 6th gen fighter project. As much as the F-22 is the best fighter out there, a lot of its guts are outdated and would require a lot of money to upgrade, test, evaluate, and field. By the time that is done, you are looking at likely prototypes of the 6th gen fighter undergoing testing.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Sooner787
Posted 2016-04-21 07:31:49 and read 5702 times.

There was another thread discussing the possibility of the USAF ordering a few dozen
more F-15's or F-16's to fill the "fighter gap" until the F35's arrive in large numbers.

I'm sure that off the shelf purchases would be way cheaper that trying to restart
the F-22 line from scratch.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: moo
Posted 2016-04-21 07:48:47 and read 5704 times.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 111):
you are looking at likely prototypes of the 6th gen fighter undergoing testing.

What makes anyone think that any 6th gen fighter would fair better than the F-22 did? What has magically changed which wouldn't also see the 6th gen fighter program production figures frozen at a ridiculously low figure and the toolings stored?

Just modernise the F-22, if that's the problem, and restart its production.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-04-21 14:41:29 and read 5356 times.

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 112):
I'm sure that off the shelf purchases would be way cheaper that trying to restart
the F-22 line from scratch.

Cheaper, yes, but for types that will be retired in the next 10-15 years... pretty expensive to just send to the bone yard with the rest of the fleet.

Restarting the F-22 would cost more, but it is a superior jet, and considering the F-22 is supposed to have a 40 year life, anything purchased now would have to be relevant for those years. Eventually (and fairly soon) the remaining F-15s will be retired and nothing to replace it (the F-22 has already replaced a portion of the F-15 fleet). Yes the F-35 can suppliment the F-22 the same as F-15 does now, but in 20 years when there are alot more stealth jets kicking around, the F-35 will need something more specialized like the F-22.

If the USAF wants to buy something for short term use, F/A-18E/Fs would be a better buy, then transfer/sell them to the USN when done with them. Airforce use will minimize wearing out the Super Hornet, and the USN will get a deal on a jet they will be keeping in service into the 2030s.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-21 16:42:57 and read 5255 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 113):
What makes anyone think that any 6th gen fighter would fair better than the F-22 did? What has magically changed which wouldn't also see the 6th gen fighter program production figures frozen at a ridiculously low figure and the toolings stored?

That is the very real and present risk and certainly come 2030 there will be arguments that the F-35 variant of the day will be cheaper to acquire and almost as capable as the 6th gen, just as we see people trying to make the same argument re F-35 and F-15/16/18 today. The real difference may be the technology that a 6th gen brings, such as DEW, and the ability of that airframe to function for the next 40 years.

It is also worth looking at the issue from an overall capability standpoint. The US is the only nation in the world with operational 5th gen aircraft and by 2025 will have over 1,000 in service. By 2025 Russia and China will likely have a combined fleet of 5th gen aircraft optimistically totalling 200 and at best 250. By 2035, the US will have 2,000 5th gen fighter aircraft, as well as 60 to 80 5th gen long range strike bombers. It is unlikely that China and Russia combined will have more than 700 5th gen aircraft by that time and likely less. I also can't see any other nations developing and introducing into service a 5th gen aircraft before 2030. The above numbers could of course be greater if tensions between Russia/China and the US increase but that only increases the numbers on both sides and the ratios probably stay broadly similar.

So in the context of above, the US probably doesn't need a new fighter jet until the 2030s anyway. They will be able to maintain a capability overmatch until at least that point.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 114):
Eventually (and fairly soon) the remaining F-15s will be retired and nothing to replace it

Pretty sure the US now intends to operate some F-15Cs all the way into the 2030s.

Quoting moo (Reply 113):
Just modernise the F-22, if that's the problem, and restart its production.
Quoting Oroka (Reply 114):
If the USAF wants to buy something for short term use, F/A-18E/Fs would be a better buy, then transfer/sell them to the USN when done with them. Airforce use will minimize wearing out the Super Hornet, and the USN will get a deal on a jet they will be keeping in service into the 2030s.

Depending upon what the result of the study will be, and in all likelihood it will be similar to what was previously assessed in a RAND report I have posted on airliners previously,

Quote:
In 2010, a RAND study commissioned by air force placed the cost at $17 billion (2008 dollars) for 75 more aircraft.

.

If an interim solution is required, an out of left field option may be to Super the existing F-35 similar to what happened to the Hornet but with the focus on A2A. Increase the airframe size 35%, increase the thrust, radar size and the internal weapons load for A2A weapons. With an active production line and using parts from the same technology and supplier base a new airframe could be built and put into service for a similar cost to an F-22 restart. After all, the current F-35 program has done all the hard work. An upsized F-35 would re-use all the sensor fusion, radar, stealth coatings etc already developed and focus on improved supersonic performance and range.

The most difficult issue would be the engine and total thrust. You will probably need to move to dual engines but for that you cut down the F135, retain the core and move to a lesser BPR fan. With a 35% increase in airframe size you gain the internal volume necessary to place two smaller diameter fan engines and increase the fuel load with lower BPR engines.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 114):
If the USAF wants to buy something for short term use, F/A-18E/Fs would be a better buy, then transfer/sell them to the USN when done with them. Airforce use will minimize wearing out the Super Hornet, and the USN will get a deal on a jet they will be keeping in service into the 2030s.

Disagree, a better option for the USAF would be simply to invest more in more F-35A. The cost is now broadly similar, the USAF will already have the infrastructure to support the jet and the F-35A exceeds the SH in every metric.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: CX747
Posted 2016-04-21 17:49:54 and read 5221 times.

Never trade iron on the ramp for promises of tomorrow. Restart the line and get that platform's number up to what it should have been. Move all the F-15Cs to the ANG and give them the top radar. That would be a start to having a fleet with some depth again. Plenty of AD F-22 units to do air-air & air-ground with a robust F-15C ANG fleet that can fill in and reduce wear and tear when possible. F-35s can keep rolling off the line and replacing F-16s and A-10s. Allowing a younger ANG fleet of technology potent F-16s.

It's like somebody gives a damn again...

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-21 20:30:04 and read 5137 times.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 116):
Restart the line and get that platform's number up to what it should have been.

Good luck getting the subcontractors to restart production of systems they've discontinued years ago and have thrown out their tooling. And some of these systems are critical, such as avionics.

By the time you have either reverse engineered and restarted production, or redesigned the systems involved, it's going to cost just as much to design and build a whole new fighter...

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oykie
Posted 2016-04-21 21:59:02 and read 5097 times.

According to Flightglobal, US lawmakers have asked for cost data on 194 more F-22 jets and cost of revival the F-22.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-lawmakers-want-cost-data-for-building-194-more-f-424404/

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-04-21 22:08:51 and read 5099 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 117):

By the time you have either reverse engineered and restarted production, or redesigned the systems involved, it's going to cost just as much to design and build a whole new fighter...

As the F-22As in service also need an avionics up-date to avoid obsolescence, this might not be a big problem, as you would mostly looking at mechanical parts that need to be re-started in production.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-22 00:11:35 and read 5039 times.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 119):
As the F-22As in service also need an avionics up-date to avoid obsolescence, this might not be a big problem, as you would mostly looking at mechanical parts that need to be re-started in production.

Avionics updates are not cheap nor easy. The F-22 would need a whole new avionics system either borrowed from another platform, or develop new directly for it. Adding to the issues is that the F-22 extensively uses Ada as the primary programing language for all systems onboard. The number of platforms using Ada as the primary programing language is extremely limited, and so is the number of people that can program in Ada.

Adding to the mess is that every other combat system onboard the F-22 would need to be redesigned or reprogrammed; the level of integration of the radar and ESM and it's capabilities and the onboard avionics is significantly deeper and higher than in previous aircraft.

Right now, minor updates and capability enhancements are costing a lot of money and headaches; take Increment 3.2B. That software update alone is costing $6.9 billion dollars just to add new software to allow the radar to be used in synthetic aperture mode, carry SDB, and replace the existing missiles with AIM-9X and AIM-120D, plus a host of other additional capabilities.

And don't forget, the USAF would also probably want to redesign various components and systems of the F-22 to take advantage of newer technology to improve reliability, durability, and serviceability; that would also cost money.

And all of this money for what, to add some more F-22's to the USAF when the F-22 is going to be replaced by a whole new design that's going to replace it in 14 years? I bet the USAF would rather take the money to restart F-22 production, and put it towards more F-35's in the interim, and towards a 6th generation replacement.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-04-22 00:20:30 and read 5037 times.

As I said, the Avioncs of the existing fleet are already a pita. If you could replace them with something F-35 based, the extra costs for building more airframes would not be that huge, but imho the wise move would be to retire the F-22 fleet in favour of a quicker F-35 purchase. F-35 has made any other fighter type in the US inventory obsolete.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-04-22 06:34:18 and read 4874 times.

Couldnt a F-22B be a F-22 airframe with F-35 derived avionics? Spend the money now, the F-35 software under development can be made with the new F-22 in mind for a common system, when the F-22A is ready for heavy upgrades, the development will be done as part of the F-22B project. Can it be done? I bet if Lockheed thought that was the only way to get a follow on F-22 order, they would find a way, and relatively affordable.

Devloping the F-35 in a way making it incompatible with the F-22 was stupid.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: bmacleod
Posted 2016-04-22 08:10:07 and read 4806 times.

Possibility if Hillary wins and GOP holds on to Congress a deal could be made - GOP will agree to pass her budget/bills whatever in exchange to limited production of F-22s.

Still unlikely as more drones seem more likely.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2016-04-22 08:36:00 and read 4787 times.

The 2030 Gen Fighter (Call it Gen 5.5) should be based on the F-22 instead of going Clean sheet. There is no way a clean sheet new airframe will be ready in 14 years. However they should build some X-Planes to investigate 6th gen Technology (probably directed energy weapons and defense). They will need ten years to figure that stuff out and test it - 6th Gen in the fleet and operational is more like 2040. 2030 is a pipe dream.

Do an upgrade on the F-22 like they did when they went from F-15 A/B/C/D to the E.

New avionics, 20% more Dry thrust. Improved Stealth. F-35 Based Avionics. But no inherent new capabilities just be better at what is theoretically possible now and make it all work! Fix all the problems in the A models.

They could be building them within 6-8 years and in the inventory by 2025 as the sharp end of the sword.

And BTW when they build 6th Gen - build 20-30 A models fly them for 5 years or so - get the bugs out then build the B models in bulk that are the good ones...

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-22 19:14:24 and read 4470 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 124):
The 2030 Gen Fighter (Call it Gen 5.5) should be based on the F-22 instead of going Clean sheet. There is no way a clean sheet new airframe will be ready in 14 years.

It can be. DARPA's already doing design studies right now, and there are studies to lead to an acquisition program in fiscal year 2018.

Some of the components and technology are already under development under other programs; for example, a 6th generation replacement is expected to use the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) engine to power the aircraft, and contracts for development have been awarded long ago. Development of a directed energy weapon is also already under contract as well.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2016-04-22 20:30:07 and read 4442 times.

There is no way they would make 2030 with a fully sorted Sixth gen and directed energy weapons. It took them until just last year to get the Raptor to be able to fire the Aim 9x - 24 years after Lockheed won the ATF contest.

They need to build some x- planes once they have the lasers of appropriate size (which I believe still don't exist yet) and fly them around for 5-10 years and get the kinks out then design 6th gen.

They need an interim Gen 5.5 based on the F22.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-22 21:03:26 and read 4669 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 126):
There is no way they would make 2030 with a fully sorted Sixth gen and directed energy weapons. It took them until just last year to get the Raptor to be able to fire the Aim 9x - 24 years after Lockheed won the ATF contest.

A lot of the sub-systems for a 6th generation fighter are already under development right now. DARPA and the USAF Research Lab are already quietly well ahead on many of the design aspects, and a 6th generation fighter would use a lot of highly evolved systems, unlike the F-22 and F-35 which had all new systems designed from scratch.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 126):
They need an interim Gen 5.5 based on the F22.

No they don't, and the USAF doesn't appear to want more F-22's in this budgetary environment. They rather prefer to make sure they get enough F-35's to meet their needs, and then purchase a brand new 6th generation aircraft.

The USAF wants to create a 6th generation fighter that would eat the F-22 for lunch in 20 years and they don't have the money to cover development of a 6th generation fighter AND a redesign and restart of production of the F-22. Not to mention, it was discovered a few years back that not all of the tooling that was used to build the F-22 was properly stored:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...are-why-not-build-more-f-22s-13858

Quote:
In one example, Air Force maintainers needed to build a particular component from scratch to replace a severely damaged part for an F-22. The crews went into the Conex boxes where the tooling and instructions to build the part were allegedly stored, but to their considerable surprise and aggravation, the container was empty. The same pattern repeated itself several times—and as of the last time the source checked–the issue remains unresolved. The bottom line is that even if the Air Force wanted to, it may not be physically possible to restart the line—at least not without a huge additional investment in time and money.

Even if they DID manage to find or rebuild all of the tooling, it would probably take years until a factory could be made ready to build more F-22's... getting a factory set up, people hired and trained, sub-contractors lined up and tooled up, long term lead items ordered and secured is not a quick or easy process. If the process started today, it would be at least 2024 until the factory could start making new F-22's, excluding any time spent on redesign, testing, and verification, which could also add years.

To add more software to the F-22 so it can get to Increment 3.2B from 3.1 is expected to take close to 4 years; a whole new avionics system would very likely take even longer, perhaps 6 or 8 years or more of development and testing.

And by then, a 6th generation replacement for the F-22 based upon current timelines would be just around the corner in a few years!

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: PITingres
Posted 2016-04-23 06:24:36 and read 4421 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 120):
The number of platforms using Ada as the primary programing language is extremely limited, and so is the number of people that can program in Ada.

Ada is mildly quirky (vaguely PL/I-ish), but it's not that hard. I can't imagine this being a limiting factor. You might have to factor in a few month's delay to get some people up to speed on it, but I'm going to claim that Ada is a lot easier to become proficient in than say C++. The latter is a human engineering disaster.

Now, whether the flight hardware can be spun back up in a timely manner -- I have no idea.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: bilgerat
Posted 2016-04-23 07:34:06 and read 4390 times.

I didn't read the entire thread so apologies if this information has been posted already.

I read the other day there are two major practical problems when it comes to restarting F-22 production:

i) Apparently at least some of the toolings and such like have gone missing, despite the efforts made to properly store them. I read the USAF needs to do major repairs on two Raptors and when they opened up the container where the required toolings were supposed to be stored they found it to be empty. This apparently has also happened when they've gone looking for other stuff too.

ii) The Raptor's avionics architecture is obsolete and many of the components used are no longer manufactured. New build Raptors would therefore require a new and updated avionics architecture which would add hugely to the costs and development time before production could be restarted. I read it is hoped the F-22 could perhaps piggy back on the F-35's planned avionics upgrade in the next decade.


The avionics issue is the biggest one I think, and the reality is by the time the development work has been done and the aircraft is ready to go back into production (and no doubt a lot of money has been spent) everyone will be looking towards a "6th gen" platform.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: CX747
Posted 2016-04-23 11:00:13 and read 4290 times.

There will always be issues with restarting a production line. Those problems just become to do lists if $$$ is applied. IF the government wants to make more Raptors....then by God that production line will start turning them out.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-23 19:53:03 and read 4057 times.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 130):
There will always be issues with restarting a production line. Those problems just become to do lists if $$$ is applied. IF the government wants to make more Raptors....then by God that production line will start turning them out.

Of course anything can be solved by throwing more money and more time at a problem. The question then becomes 'is it worth it?'

There's not much of a value proposition if the end result would mean that for a production run of say, 180 aircraft, each new production F-22 would have an average cost of $500 million dollars... I could probably buy 5 or 6 F-35A's for the cost of just 1 new F-22. And if that is the case, the generals will all say 'buy more F-35's please.'

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sonic67
Posted 2016-04-23 21:13:58 and read 4053 times.

The F35 is not a air superiority fighter and would not have a chance against a modern Russian fighter such as the Mig 29 or SU 27. The comparison is not relavent.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/world/us-russia-bombers-intentions/
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...mocks-america-response-jets-flyby/
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/08/1...-su-27-top-american-f-35/?mobile=1

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-23 22:22:54 and read 4014 times.

Quoting sonic67 (Reply 132):
The F35 is not a air superiority fighter and would not have a chance against a modern Russian fighter such as the Mig 29 or SU 27. The comparison is not relavent.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/world/us-russia-bombers-intentions/
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...mocks-america-response-jets-flyby/
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/08/1...ile=1

Your first and second articles have no reference to the F-35 at ALL (so why the heck are you posting them to support your assertion?), and your second references a researcher from a think tank that provides 'progressive defence policies', and upon examination of the person's qualifications, has no qualifications to speak of (nor a pilot, is an engineer, a historian, or has served), and continuously references debunked articles, such as the F-35 can't dogfight (hint: it can per this pilot and this pilot here ,here, and here

So what does your sources have to do with the price of tea in China?

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-04-24 06:51:55 and read 3854 times.

Why cant the F-22 be the 6th gen fighter? Infact, why does there need to be a '6th gen' at all? Why cant it be incremental updates like the C-130 or B-52? The only real reason 5th gen needs a new airframe is stealth. Why not make a F-22B that is designed for major updates and hardware swaps? There is nothing in the mushy 6th gen specs that cant be rolled into an existing 5th gen airframe.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: kanban
Posted 2016-04-24 10:08:53 and read 3754 times.

While you guys are working up a lather bashing opinions, remember this : the comments by the Department of Defense, Air Force, Navy etc. are all just hot air in a continual battle with Congress which is duty bound to produce more hot air.. The result will probably be nothing (as is so often the case). or if they do something it will be too late and horrendously expensive.

Personally I still believe that no more than 50% of the F-35 wish amount will ever be funded and built.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-24 19:35:42 and read 3556 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 134):
There is nothing in the mushy 6th gen specs that cant be rolled into an existing 5th gen airframe.

By the time one does all of the changes to the design of the F-22, one really doesn't come out ahead compared to a clean sheet replacement.

Remember that things like the engines and avionics comprise close to 3/4 of the cost of a fighter jet; designing a whole new airframe is a much cheaper affair. And a clean sheet replacement allows the USAF to tweak various aspects of the design much more easily to reflect operational experience. For example, the USAF may want larger internal weapons capability in a F-22 replacement, or more internal fuel. Or, the USAF would want something like the F-35's DAS sensors embedded in the skin; easier to do with a new design than to modify an existing design.

Remember, the F-22 has a lot of design compromises to achieve various performance aspects; for example, the supercruise requirement meant that the F-22 actually has a shorter range than the F-35 while smaller internal volume for weapons while having a similar fuel volume. The USAF may in the end may want to swing the design the other way, for example eliminate the supercruise capability to achieve more range and payload. This appears to be what the USAF is wanting as the USAF is pushing development of variable cycle engines in part to achieve better performance and efficiency, and such engines are going to be F135 sized, not F119 sized.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: sonic67
Posted 2016-04-24 19:39:13 and read 3567 times.

This is why the US needs to restart F22 production.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...mocks-america-response-jets-flyby/

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 133):

So you are saying that the F-35 can go head to head with a Russian Mig or any other supiority fighter? If you are willing to say this as a F-35 pilot that it can survive a true dogfight and not just a simulation that is good enough for me.

The reason I posted the other two articles is to show that the Russians are not afraid of the United States air power and are trying to provoke hostility.

"Pointblank" It easy to desmiss some by saying they are not qualified but this form is just for discussion not to make policy.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-24 20:42:14 and read 3545 times.

Quoting sonic67 (Reply 137):
This is why the US needs to restart F22 production.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...lyby/

Do you think the US military cares? Nope. The US military as an entire entity can completely out muscle the Russians in practically every metric available. The US has over 330 stealth fighters in its inventory; the Russians only have 5. The USN has 54 SSN's; the Russians only have 18 older submarines and 21 conventional submarines.

Quoting sonic67 (Reply 137):
So you are saying that the F-35 can go head to head with a Russian Mig or any other supiority fighter? If you are willing to say this as a F-35 pilot that it can survive a true dogfight and not just a simulation that is good enough for me.

Two pilots that I've linked to, one actually flying a F-35, the other that's flying F/A-18's and has flown F-16's, have said in the right hands, the F-35 is an extremely capable fighter.

Quoting sonic67 (Reply 137):
"Pointblank" It easy to desmiss some by saying they are not qualified but this form is just for discussion not to make policy.

If you are going to make a statement, and use a source to back up that statement, that source better be credible. The person that you reference should have actual knowledge on the topic at hand, and have the qualifications to demonstrate that they do have the knowledge. As the second pilot notes with some humour:

Quote:
It’s hard not to laugh when another “definitive” article comes out declaring not only is the F-35 a lame duck WVR, but it’s also dead in the water BVR. Holy crap.

There are two groups of people that know the true capabilities of the F-35: those that have the clearance necessary to read about it, and the people who built it (who have the same clearance)…. And probably the Chinese, but that’s another story. Anyone else that makes claims to know what the capabilities of this aircraft are and how they compare to threat aircraft (also classified, by the way), are just wrong and have traveled so far out of their lane it’s not even funny. They just don’t know what they don’t know.

I’m sorry, but you don’t have a right or need to know. The military keeps these things classified for a very good reason – to save American lives. Sensors, capabilities, tactics, and the like are not going to be released to journalists unless someone does so illegally. And even then, it’s like a dog watching TV. They’re not going to understand what they’re even looking at (as we’ve seen in these “expert interpretations” of a leaked FOUO test report).

Why is this important? Because any unclassified source that claims to know how an F-35 will do in a BVR engagement is flat-out wrong. Anything beyond that is pure speculation based on marketing brochures that are worth less in the real world than the paper they’re printed on. Sorry.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first aircraft to be developed, tested, and flown in the “instant gratification” age. No other aircraft has had its dirty laundry aired in real time quite like this one. And a lot of people have worn out their “Jump to Conclusions Mat” as a result – without any valid information to back it up.

In the academic world, other debaters will eat you alive for using sources with limited or no credibility. If the pilots and generals all have confidence in the F-35 as a combat aircraft, I'm happy. It seems every random blogger / journalist
/ defence 'researcher' has suddenly become a military aviation expert overnight. I'm sorry, but what are their qualifications? Do they have access to the classified data? Do they have the education or background knowledge to support their argument? If not, they are making arguments that have no basis on any valid information, and that's a logical fallacy (I believe it's called Arguing from Ignorance).

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-04-24 22:10:24 and read 3526 times.

F-35 will also win against F-22, as the avionics are better. The best idea would be to retire the F-22 quickly and use the money to buy more F-35s, which gives you a more coherent fleet and more capably fighters.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-24 22:18:55 and read 3538 times.

Another article on the potential, possibly deal breaking hurdles a F-22 restart would have to overcome:

http://www.defenseone.com/technology...-22s-heres-what-would-take/127729/

Basically, 3 main points:
1. Money. USAF isn't exactly swimming in cash, and the USAF currently riding a bow wave of aircraft that need replacement in a few years time, everything from fighters, tankers, bombers, and ICBM security helicopters. Restarting F-22 would mean taking money away from replacing aircraft that are at the end of their design lives. Remember a RAND study way back when that said that to build an additional 75 new jets would cost $17 billion. Adjust for inflation and boost production to 194 Raptors, and the total price tag likely approaches $30 billion.

2. Reengineering the aircraft to replace out of production or long obsolete systems. Such an effort could take 5 years easy, and if more systems need to be replaced to take advantage of newer technology, could take even longer.

3. No factory. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Pratt have all moved on with the spaces used to build F-22's, and so have the many smaller suppliers. Boeing's Seattle's facility that built the wings and aft fuselage is now building 787's. Pratt no longer builds new F119 engines, and the only place that works on them is at Tinker Air Force Base. The final assembly building at Air Force Plant 6 in Marietta, Georgia is now building C-130J's, F-35 centre wings, and overhauling C-5's. You also need to train a new workforce, and all learning-curve efficiencies will have to start from the beginning.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-04-25 09:49:19 and read 3268 times.

After the F-35 drama, I dont see anyone having the stomach to green light yet another fighter program. The F-22 restart could be used like a F/A-18EF trick... looks almost the same, but really its a new jet. The F-22 is new enough that not everything needs to be new, but simplying calling it a production restart with some modernizing is alot easier on the ears.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-25 16:00:37 and read 3032 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 141):
After the F-35 drama, I dont see anyone having the stomach to green light yet another fighter program. The F-22 restart could be used like a F/A-18EF trick... looks almost the same, but really its a new jet. The F-22 is new enough that not everything needs to be new, but simplying calling it a production restart with some modernizing is alot easier on the ears.

The F/A-18E/F trick only worked because there was still a production line for classic Hornets when the project was started but that doesn't exist for the F-22. The addition of a production line start-up, combined with the airframe modernization required, doesn’t make a lot of fiscal sense.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 139):
F-35 will also win against F-22, as the avionics are better. The best idea would be to retire the F-22 quickly and use the money to buy more F-35s, which gives you a more coherent fleet and more capably fighters.

The F-22 has a place in the force structure but given its limited multi-role capabilities that place is restricted to a few select mission types. It makes no sense to buy more F-22s at the expense of F-35s but I don't think that is the intention here. Additional F-22s would prevent funding the upgrade of F-15s and instead retiring the F-15s.

Quoting kanban (Reply 135):
Personally I still believe that no more than 50% of the F-35 wish amount will ever be funded and built.

Are yes, that famous F-35 death spiral argument. There are absolutely no indications that the US will back away from any of the planned total for all three variants but if for some reason they do, it won’t be for another airframe but as a result of wholesale force reductions.

Meanwhile LRIP 11 long lead items have been funded and constitutes 92 F-35 aircraft (80 F-35A, 8 F-35B and 4 F-35C) while the program met its delivery goals of 36 jets in 2014 and 45 jets in 2015 with 53 jets planned for 2016.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-25 19:36:06 and read 2959 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 141):
After the F-35 drama, I dont see anyone having the stomach to green light yet another fighter program. The F-22 restart could be used like a F/A-18EF trick... looks almost the same, but really its a new jet. The F-22 is new enough that not everything needs to be new, but simplying calling it a production restart with some modernizing is alot easier on the ears.

The F/A-18 E/F didn't do much in terms of innovation; the aircraft when it initially came out flew with what was a direct copy of the original F/A-18C/D's avionics systems.

What the USN did later in conjunction with Boeing was to introduce avionics upgrade spirals, where the avionics were upgraded and enhanced over time as production continued. A late production Super Hornet has very little in common in terms of avionics compared to the first ones off the line. In effect, what Boeing and USN did was to trick Congress into redesigning the avionics on the Super Hornet by initially passing the aircraft off as a minor variant, when in the end, it's an all new aircraft, save for some sections of the front fuselage.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-04-25 20:52:55 and read 2908 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 142):
The F/A-18E/F trick only worked because there was still a production line for classic Hornets when the project was started but that doesn't exist for the F-22. The addition of a production line start-up, combined with the airframe modernization required, doesn’t make a lot of fiscal sense.

Still cheaper than starting a new program. The F-22 will be needing some upgrades in the next 10-15 years, sooner if you want proper integration with the F-35. A upgrade program rolled in with a line restart would be cheaper than designing a new fighter from scratch (you have to build a new line), and if anyone goes asking for money for a F-36 in the next decade, they will get a swift kick in the rear. The F-22 will have to be updated one way or another... why do upgrades AND design a new fighter? The F-22 is still the premier fighter... why plan its obsolescence?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 143):
In effect, what Boeing and USN did was to trick Congress into redesigning the avionics on the Super Hornet by initially passing the aircraft off as a minor variant, when in the end, it's an all new aircraft, save for some sections of the front fuselage.

And that is exactly why a F-22B is alot more likely than a 6th gen fighter in the next 20 years. Roll it as a upgrade of the F-22, build some more while your at it to better utilize the money being spent. What a bargain! No new fighters! Use what we have more effectively! Easy sell. Remember the F/A-22... simple name change to make it sound more versatile... image and perception is everything when dealing with politicians and public.

We know restarting the F-22 line will be expensive, but it will still be cheaper than a new build. Then the discussion of possibly offering it for sale to allies? Sell some to the Australians and Japanese, im sure Israel will take some too, that will decrease the costs for the USAF. More F-22s flying around, even if it is in friendly airforces, is better than 186.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-04-25 22:07:22 and read 2866 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 142):
It makes no sense to buy more F-22s at the expense of F-35s but I don't think that is the intention here. Additional F-22s would prevent funding the upgrade of F-15s and instead retiring the F-15s.

It would make sense to buy more F-35 to retire the F-22 and the F-15.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-25 23:04:29 and read 2861 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 144):
Still cheaper than starting a new program. The F-22 will be needing some upgrades in the next 10-15 years, sooner if you want proper integration with the F-35. A upgrade program rolled in with a line restart would be cheaper than designing a new fighter from scratch (you have to build a new line),

While I agree it would be cheaper the issue becomes the viability of the platform, with upgrades, to last the next 40 years. As per my post in reply #115, the US does not have a pressing need for more F-22s today but it will have a pressing need for that capability overmatch by 2035. The F-22 is not that aircraft, a future 6th gen jet is. If that is true, then why throw more money at a jet that will probably be at par in 2035 instead of a jet that will maintain the capability advantage the US currently has.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 144):
Then the discussion of possibly offering it for sale to allies? Sell some to the Australians and Japanese, im sure Israel will take some too, that will decrease the costs for the USAF. More F-22s flying around, even if it is in friendly airforces, is better than 186.

How long would it take for the F-22 to be modernized and aircraft rolling off the restarted production? 5 years would be optimistic, more likely 7 if they started today and that is to IOC of new jets post testing. That becomes 8 or 9 years until an export customer gets their hands on them.

The US already offered Australia F-22s in the late 90s at which point the Australian DoD politely stated no as they identified they could never meet the sustainment costs. Japan may see a need but they probably see more value in pushing forward with their domestic aspirations. Israel already has overmatch and will maintain that as long as no gulf states go 5th gen. Even if Japan and Israel did take some, we are talking probably less than 60 between them, hardly enough to justify nearly 1 billion cost of redesigning the aircraft with export in mind.

Quote:

Analysts say the bill for removing highly classified equipment could be close to $1 billion,
http://www.reuters.com/article/lockh...ed-f22-japan-idUSN0530055420090605

Quoting seahawk (Reply 145):
It would make sense to buy more F-35 to retire the F-22 and the F-15.

The F-22 still has that high and fast missile launch advantage, something neither the F-35 nor F-15 are particularly good at. There are enough F-22 airframes in service that they can value add for many years to come. The USAF F-15E fleet is just over 200 airframes and they maintain and sustain that number so keeping the 180 odd F-22 airframes in service shouldn't be an issue from a planning or budgetary point of view.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-04-26 00:03:12 and read 2869 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 146):

The F-22 still has that high and fast missile launch advantage, something neither the F-35 nor F-15 are particularly good at. There are enough F-22 airframes in service that they can value add for many years to come. The USAF F-15E fleet is just over 200 airframes and they maintain and sustain that number so keeping the 180 odd F-22 airframes in service shouldn't be an issue from a planning or budgetary point of view.

No, as the whole avionics structure of the F-22 is a "one of a kind" solution, while the F-15E share a lot with the Golden Eagles and even the SH. The software work alone on the F-22 is prohibitively expensive. On the other hand if you would look at the F-22 and make a F-22B from it, including a twin seater F-22E as a F-15E replacement,~ 200 frames + 190 frames new F-22B (as Golden Eagle replacements) + using the avionics to up-grade the existing fleet, you might even look at a practical solution.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-26 01:11:28 and read 2850 times.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 147):
including a twin seater F-22E as a F-15E replacement

Not going to happen. Look at where the bulk head is for the sections Lockheed Martin Marietta built and where Lockheed Martin Ft. Worth built:


That bulk head cannot be moved. So any additional seats would have to be FORWARD of that point, and the fuel tank and bulk head aren't going anywhere. This has an impact on weight and balance of the aircraft, so a redesign of the tail surfaces to balance the weight needs to occur. And this all needs to be tested; it is a total recertification of the aircraft's flight envelope from the ground up, plus whole new testing done in regards to structural loads and fatigue life; you can't just add a couple hundred pounds of weight to the front without causing some sort of structural issue elsewhere. You are adding at least 2 years of testing alone, in addition to the time to redesign the structures involved.

Such an exercise to add a second seat to the F-22 would make such a variant prohibitively expensive, for what is already an extremely expensive aircraft.

[Edited 2016-04-26 01:15:31]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-04-26 04:50:26 and read 2770 times.

The F-22 is already prohibitively expensive. Re-opening the line is a folly unless you can meet another requirement with this. And the only idea I can come up with is the twin seat F-15 replacement, although I think the superior avionics of the F-35 make a twin seat plane obsolete and F-15E should be replaced by F-35s.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-04-27 11:08:50 and read 2286 times.

I dont think that if the USAF decides they want to redefine what their fighter force can do, they are going to get a cent after the F-22 and F-35 blowing their budgets.

A new anything will be prohibitively expensive, congress will shove anything they want down the USAFs throat if they feel it is a better choice. A new jet wont happen. The USAF has already backed away from the 6th gen that is being talking up and stated that the generational thing is over and it will be incremental upgrades. This also isnt the century series where they can field a new fighter every decade. The F-35 is supposed to have a 40 year life, and there will probably be life extensions to the program, so 50 years is a reasonable estimate.

Rebuilding the F-22 line is still cheaper than building a new line from scratch for a new jet.

*IMO* importing the F-35 avionics into a updated F-22 so there can be a common hardware and software lineage would be more effective in the long term than developing yet another airframe and avionics package. Engines are often upgraded, so that is not an issue... its going to happen either way. Testing a variant of an existing system is cheaper than a new system.

And realistically... the F-22 took 20 years, as did the F-35. We are looking at 2035-2040 before anything is in the air. by that time the F-35 will have had a major upgrade and the F-22 will be on its second.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-27 16:11:07 and read 2132 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 150):

I dont think that if the USAF decides they want to redefine what their fighter force can do, they are going to get a cent after the F-22 and F-35 blowing their budgets.

Given all three services have blown their budgets on a host of acquisition programs, in some cases like the US Army FCS program with no deliverables for somewhere close to US$15 billion spent, I don't see any of the services not continuing to develop systems. Yes they need to reign in their dev programs, have greater control and almost certainly stop scope creep that keeps occurring but there are few if any military dev programs across the globe that haven't gone over budget.

For example, it is clear the PAK-FA is taking longer to develop than planned, probably somewhere between 3-5 years and that is a less ambitious program than either the F-22 or F-35. We hear little on the J-20 but it would be reasonable to expect a similar delay.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 150):
A new jet wont happen. The USAF has already backed away from the 6th gen that is being talking up and stated that the generational thing is over and it will be incremental upgrades. This also isnt the century series where they can field a new fighter every decade. The F-35 is supposed to have a 40 year life, and there will probably be life extensions to the program, so 50 years is a reasonable estimate.

Not sure where you are getting that from, the USAF and USN are both pretty committed to 6th gen aircraft.

Quote:

Kendall told Maine Sen. Angus King during the hearing that there wasn’t a great chance of the Navy and Air Force developing an aircraft together any time soon, as happened with the F-35. Both services are in the early stages of developing sixth generation fighters.

“We’re now thinking about the follow-on aircraft for the Navy and the Air Force, and I don’t think we’re going to repeat this [joint acquisition],” Frank Kendall said. “The design parameters are going to be quite different for the follow-on aircraft of the two services. We did get some benefit from the commonality, but there’s very little commonality in the [airframe] structure,” Kendall said.

At the same time, Kendall told King that the Pentagon “could still get some of those benefits without having to have a single program,” by building cockpits and sensors with a great deal of commonality.
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/m...35-bulk-buy-kendall-says-it-works/

Quoting Oroka (Reply 150):
*IMO* importing the F-35 avionics into a updated F-22 so there can be a common hardware and software lineage would be more effective in the long term than developing yet another airframe and avionics package. Engines are often upgraded, so that is not an issue... its going to happen either way. Testing a variant of an existing system is cheaper than a new system.

All of that can happen, while expensive and risk prone, without re-opening a line and producing more aircraft.

The question remains, does the USAF need more F-22s to complete its core mission of defeating a near peer adversary or will existing and planned 5th gen aircraft numbers be enough?

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-04-28 01:57:27 and read 2085 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 151):
Given all three services have blown their budgets on a host of acquisition programs, in some cases like the US Army FCS program with no deliverables for somewhere close to US$15 billion spent, I don't see any of the services not continuing to develop systems.

That is not how politicians will see it. One guy will go on a campaign to make do with what they have, and following the dirty trail the F-35 and F-22 left... it will spread.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 151):
Not sure where you are getting that from, the USAF and USN are both pretty committed to 6th gen aircraft.
Quote:
“F-X would have been most likely like a sixth-generation fighter and would have had a 20 or 30-year development programme,” Holmes said at an Air Force Association forum in Washington DC on 7 April. “What we want to try to do is solve the problem faster than that by looking out across the range of options and building what we’re capable of building instead of waiting for the next generation.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-backs-off-sixth-gen-fighter-in-quest-for-air-423994/

They dont rule out new airframes, but they are not going to do everything in them all new.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 151):
All of that can happen, while expensive and risk prone, without re-opening a line and producing more aircraft.

Yes, but you might as well get more bang for your buck if you are doing heavy rework anyways. The risky part is the integration of the F-35 avionics, which is nearing completion so it is not some big unknown, the airframe is just time and money. They are spending money upgrading the F-15C, an air frame that may only have another 15 years of service. The USAF wants to retire 50+ of the F-15C and only upgrade 178. That money would be better spent on something that will be around longer than 15 years. Let the F-22 do the hard work, let the F-15s age (they still are not obsolete), get a true replacement for them built as originally intended.

Id love to see a 6th generation fighter, but I come from a management background, and I dont see an overall appetite for a new fighter being viable. Sure it could be started, but it would be a hell of a fight to keep it funded, and one small hick-up, it will join the VH-71 and RAH-66, and you know there WILL be a hick-up with any new program. It will start life with a giant bullseye on its back in an atmosphere of people just itching to shoot something to make a point.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2016-04-28 06:09:19 and read 2019 times.

What if they just stopped spending money on F-22a upgrades and used that money to Develop F22b (F35 Avionics, Use technology from the Advanced Fighter Engine) and restart production?

I don't know the exact number but isn't it something like $10-$20 Billion further to be spent on F22a upgrades? And probably more to come when they eventually remanufacture it with new avionics as they can't get spare parts for the old one.

I think they would be a lot further ahead to stop with this remanufacturing nonsense, and just keep the line going long term building the latest and greatest into new builds and stop retrofitting - which is incredibly expensive.

The original F-22's become the the Trainer's and new Builds are the front line fighters. Eventually there is a C and D model and the original's are retired just like the F-15 A/B/C/D series.

Build them for a 20 year service life but keep the line going (20 per year?) so you always have 200ish of the latest and greatest.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-28 15:45:32 and read 1817 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 152):
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-backs-off-sixth-gen-fighter-in-quest-for-air-423994/

They dont rule out new airframes, but they are not going to do everything in them all new.

Thanks for the source. I don't think the concept has changed but like the LRS-B there is probably a focus on using proven technology where possible. Not sure I like that concept very much but it is probably fiscally prudent. The requirements are likely to be very flexible on adversary advances though. If for instance the Chinese come out with something super in the late 20s or early 30s 6th gen development is going to have to ensure they are maintaining a technology advantage.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 152):
and you know there WILL be a hick-up with any new program. It will start life with a giant bullseye on its back in an atmosphere of people just itching to shoot something to make a point.

Yes, the internet age... I am waiting for the start of the LRS-B threads about delays, issues, people who loved the Boeing/LM concept, POGO comments on it. Given what has happened to the F-35, the reception for both the LRS-B and 6th gen fighter will be savage...

Quoting morrisond (Reply 153):
What if they just stopped spending money on F-22a upgrades and used that money to Develop F22b (F35 Avionics, Use technology from the Advanced Fighter Engine) and restart production?

That isn't an effective use of funding and it makes maintaining the overall fleet of jets incredibly complex. Could you imagine sorting out the spares and maintenance issues of a fleet of jets all at different stages? If we take the F-16 as an example, when blocks were built they were built often greater than the entire production run of the F-22, whereas what you’re proposing ends up being a series of almost orphaned jets, perhaps 20-40 per block upgrade. Maintainers would struggle to transition from one squadron to another given the differences.

Better to spend the dollars and keep the fleet at as close to one block upgrade point as possible.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-04-28 22:13:36 and read 1713 times.

One should not forget that if you ignore the avionics and just look at the plane, the F-22 is kind of 6th gen. compared to the F-35. It is said to have a lower RCS and the flight performance is also way better.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-28 22:59:12 and read 1699 times.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 155):
One should not forget that if you ignore the avionics and just look at the plane, the F-22 is kind of 6th gen. compared to the F-35. It is said to have a lower RCS and the flight performance is also way better.

Not quite, the US has stated the F-35 is actually stealthier than the F-22.

Quote:
The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22

The F-35 also has a longer range, more diverse selection of weapons, more advanced sensors and significantly improved sensor fusion than the F-22.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: caoimhin
Posted 2016-04-29 08:06:06 and read 1530 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 156):
Not quite, the US has stated the F-35 is actually stealthier than the F-22.

That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. Do you have an article with that statement? The statements (granted, they are now a decade old) I recall reading compared the F-22 to a metal marble vs F-35 being a metal golf ball. Since the F-35 was advanced in its design when that comparison was made, I wonder what changed?

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2016-04-29 11:19:18 and read 1446 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 154):
That isn't an effective use of funding and it makes maintaining the overall fleet of jets incredibly complex. Could you imagine sorting out the spares and maintenance issues of a fleet of jets all at different stages? If we take the F-16 as an example, when blocks were built they were built often greater than the entire production run of the F-22, whereas what you’re proposing ends up being a series of almost orphaned jets, perhaps 20-40 per block upgrade. Maintainers would struggle to transition from one squadron to another given the differences.

Okay then - Block 1 F-22a just take it as it is and stop pouring money down the hole and Block 2 F-22b

Although with 2 minutes searching I found the following - there are already mulitple F22 Blocks

Block 10: Baseline IOC configuration. A-A only, external tanks and AMRAAM carriage

Block 20: JDAM capable (Global Strike Basic)

Increment 2: supersonic JDAM release, improved IFDL

Block 30: APG-77(v)1

Block 30 Increment 3.1: SAR modes, self targeting for JDAM, SDB capability (Global Strike initial Enhanced)

Block 35 Increment 3.2: MALD, Enhanced SDB capability, multi-ship geo-location, AGCAS, AIM-9X, AIM-120D. (Global Strike Enhanced)

Block 35: Increment 3.3: (Unfunded presently) Mode 5/S transponder, additional automatic radar modes, GMTI


This comes from the F-22 PO from a June 2008 document. While it doesn’t give the upgrades in specific detail it does give an outline of capabilities.

Image

[Edited 2016-04-29 11:47:01]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-29 13:25:00 and read 1382 times.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 157):

That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. Do you have an article with that statement?

Yes. I posted a blog that had the reference but not the primary source itself which is here, http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/g...growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

Quoting morrisond (Reply 158):

Okay then - Block 1 F-22a just take it as it is and stop pouring money down the hole and Block 2 F-22b

Although with 2 minutes searching I found the following - there are already mulitple F22 Blocks

Correct, but right now, and has been the plan for awhile, all jets are Blk 20 or Blk 30. The training jets are at Blk 20 and I believe will stay that way, these are called the non combat coded jets, while the rest of the fleet will continue to be upgraded to Blk 35 and onward.

Important thing to note is how much that source document indicates the cost of these upgrades are, if I remember correctly somewhere in the region of US$7 billion dollars...

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2016-04-29 20:38:14 and read 1253 times.

That's my point - don't spend the $7billion use that to develop the F22b and restart production.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-29 21:42:54 and read 1241 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 160):
That's my point - don't spend the $7billion use that to develop the F22b and restart production.

It will cost a lot more than that to restart F-22 production. Try adding more than $20 billion dollars to that, and you'll get a better number, and that's a very conservative estimate. The RAND study that looked at restarting F-22 production with no design changes for a lot of 75 aircraft was $17 billion dollars. And that study was done when the F-22 production line was already starting to wind down. Bump that production number up to 194, and adjust for inflation, it would be $30 billion dollars. And that's assuming that all of the tooling can be located and readied, factory spaces are available, and subcontractors readied.

Any design changes would jack up the costs, immensely. And you bet there will be some design changes, some reflecting that certain components are out of production, and some to improve maintainability (such as changing the F-22's skin to what is being used on the F-35). It could easily be double that, and by then, you might as well just develop a brand new fighter that doesn't have all of these supportability and maintainability issues in the first place!

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oykie
Posted 2016-04-30 02:04:22 and read 1171 times.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 147):
The software work alone on the F-22 is prohibitively expensive.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 148):
Such an exercise to add a second seat to the F-22 would make such a variant prohibitively expensive, for what is already an extremely expensive aircraft.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 149):
The F-22 is already prohibitively expensive. Re-opening the line is a folly unless you can meet another requirement with this.
Quoting Oroka (Reply 150):
A new anything will be prohibitively expensive, congress will shove anything they want down the USAFs throat if they feel it is a better choice. A new jet wont happen.
Quoting Oroka (Reply 150):
*IMO* importing the F-35 avionics into a updated F-22 so there can be a common hardware and software lineage would be more effective in the long term than developing yet another airframe and avionics package. Engines are often upgraded, so that is not an issue... its going to happen either way. Testing a variant of an existing system is cheaper than a new system.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 153):
I think they would be a lot further ahead to stop with this remanufacturing nonsense, and just keep the line going long term building the latest and greatest into new builds and stop retrofitting - which is incredibly expensive.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 161):
It will cost a lot more than that to restart F-22 production. Try adding more than $20 billion dollars to that, and you'll get a better number, and that's a very conservative estimate.

I am quoting all of you who are saying it will be expensive. Even if you support the F-22 or do not support the F-22. I really like the F-22 and F-35. I am by no means an engineer and have no idea about the complexity. But as a global citizen, protected by NATO and the U.S it gives me comfort, assurance of peace everytime the U.S sends out their F-22 nearby a potential conflict zone. With the F-22 it sends out a signal. Don't even think about it. I do not like war, but I like the idea that NATO with the U.S are so powerful, that we get to keep our peace. I am glad norway gets their F-35 to send the signal, that we are prepared. I worry that the cost of the F-35 will also make our ground force much smaller, but if it can protect our borders I am all for it.

For those of you who oppose to restart the F-22, saying it is too expensive compared to the more advanced F-35, would a modified F-35 with a mach 2.5 capability and same air superiority capabilities as the F-22 be less costly? Lets say an F-35 on steroids? To make an illustration that may be out of context, but the European VW Passat and Golf share the same platform. Fhe F-35 is already a three member family. What about introducing a 4th member?  

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-04-30 14:37:51 and read 938 times.

Quoting Oykie (Reply 162):

For those of you who oppose to restart the F-22, saying it is too expensive compared to the more advanced F-35, would a modified F-35 with a mach 2.5 capability and same air superiority capabilities as the F-22 be less costly? Lets say an F-35 on steroids?

That is just the reason I suggested the below. A M2.5 top speed would be pretty irrelevant but an ability to supercruise around M1.5-1.7 would be advantageous.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 115):
If an interim solution is required, an out of left field option may be to Super the existing F-35 similar to what happened to the Hornet but with the focus on A2A. Increase the airframe size 35%, increase the thrust, radar size and the internal weapons load for A2A weapons. With an active production line and using parts from the same technology and supplier base a new airframe could be built and put into service for a similar cost to an F-22 restart. After all, the current F-35 program has done all the hard work. An upsized F-35 would re-use all the sensor fusion, radar, stealth coatings etc already developed and focus on improved supersonic performance and range.

The most difficult issue would be the engine and total thrust. You will probably need to move to dual engines but for that you cut down the F135, retain the core and move to a lesser BPR fan. With a 35% increase in airframe size you gain the internal volume necessary to place two smaller diameter fan engines and increase the fuel load with lower BPR engines.

An already active production line and host of engineers who have recent experience working with the F-35 would make this just about the lowest risk option available. It just becomes an issue of how much performance you could extract from an F-35 modded for pure A2A. As I said above mods would include increased thrust from one or two engines, perhaps larger structure but greater wing sweep for better supersonic performance and modified bays to improve A2A carriage at the expense of A2G.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-04-30 19:50:39 and read 839 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 163):
That is just the reason I suggested the below. A M2.5 top speed would be pretty irrelevant but an ability to supercruise around M1.5-1.7 would be advantageous.

Very high top speeds are extremely irrelevant. Often, such top speeds can only be obtained under certain conditions, and with the aircraft basically clean of external weapons or pylons, fuel at a certain level, and the engines in good shape. And even then, the aircraft can only sustain such speeds for just a few seconds because the engines will be gulping down fuel.

For example, the amount of time the global F-15 fleet has reached anywhere near the rated top speed of Mach 2.5 is no longer than the length of a standard movie... and usually, high speed runs of Mach 2.0 are only attained during check rides when the aircraft is just out of maintenance... Even then, you are running a risk if you tried to stay at such high speeds for any length of time as the canopy could melt due to heat friction, and you could also damage the engines.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-04-30 21:37:07 and read 798 times.

A new jet will need a new line (in a building), which is more expensive than rebuilding an existing line. Then the design work, prototyping, rework...etc. The F-22 is not that far out of production that no one remembers anything. The F-22 is sucking up money for upgrades, when a superior system is being built for the F-35. They could take a EMD F-22 and start reworking it as the prototype of the F-22B.

The F-35 is a bit of a brick, it was not designed to be particularly fast without blasting fuel out its end. It is the greatest of compromises in design, and would look alot more like the J-31 if a STOVL ability wasnt needed. What it traded in natural speed was countered by raw power on demand. The F-22 wasnt designed to be a strike bomber, the F-35 wasnt designed to be an air superiority fighter. Shoehorning those abilities into either would compromise eachs skills.

The F-35 will do the bulk of the work, but the F-22 is the king of the skys (as designed). 186 is not enough once the F-15C is put out to pasture. In an average engagement the F-35 would splash opponents BVR, unseen, but if it is somehow ambushed by a SU-30... its going to be a much more risky prospect. That is what the F-22 was designed for.

Heck, the F-35 avionics could probably serve as the backbone for the B-21.


Also, anyone see that the life expectancy of the F-35 was extended to 2070!
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-f-35-service-life-extended-to-2070-423536/

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-05-01 01:06:23 and read 770 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 165):
A new jet will need a new line (in a building), which is more expensive than rebuilding an existing line.

The F-22 line no longer exists. Remember, the F-22's major components were built in these locations:

Aft Fuselage and wings: Boeing, in Seattle, WA. Currently involved building 787's.
F119 engines: Pratt at Middletown, CT. Factory switched over to F135 production, no new F119 engines built. Overhaul is conducted at Tinker AFB
Forward fuselage: Lockheed Martin at Ft. Worth, TX. Production line currently assembling F-35's
Final assembly: Lockheed Martin at Air Force Plant 6 in Marietta, GA. Currently producing F-35 centre wing sections, C-130J's, and C-5 upgrades.

So, no the production line doesn't exist. It currently exists in a bunch of ISO shipping containers, and even then, some tooling and jigs are apparently missing. And that's ignoring the subcontractors; there probably are thousands of subcontractors that made parts for the F-22 and F119 engine. Many of these may continue to produce spares or a shared part with the F-35/F135, but there is likely an equivalent or larger number that have either shut down their production lines producing those parts, or the company just no longer exists.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 165):
Then the design work, prototyping, rework...etc.

A major modification program is just as involved and requires just as much testing as a whole new aircraft.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 165):
The F-22 is not that far out of production that no one remembers anything.

Yes it is. The last F-22 rolled off the line in 2011. Many of the workers have moved onto other programs, or have retired. Add in the time to find a new factory space, put all of the tooling together, replace missing tooling, train new people, get sub contractors going and it will easily be a decade until production could theoretically restart.

I recommend you do some research on 'production learning curve'... you are effectively starting from the very beginning again, not only for the factory assembling new F-22's, but at the various subcontractors as well. Not as easy as you make it out to be.

All of these restart ideas are complete and utter nonsense; its prohibitive for so many reasons, including time, NRE for the all new stuff you think you can just 'tweak' or import from F-35, engine development, DMSMS problems that will send many a project manager running-in-the-streets-naked-screaming-we're-all-doomed for the stuff you retain, a full test slate, the effective restart at zero for manufacturing learning curve (and a resulting eye watering fly away cost for a small production run as a result), and not exportable so you cant realize any economies of scale (The F-22 was already extremely expensive in the first place).

This idea of a F-22 restart is essentially the mil-av version of the 757 revival threads that keep popping up in civil-av, with much of the same problems only magnified by 1000x. F-22 production ended for very good reasons, and these reasons are costs and parts obsolesce, both of which were caused by decisions made very early in the program.

[Edited 2016-05-01 01:07:45]

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-05-01 08:48:32 and read 634 times.

Sorry, I keep using 'line' for tooling.

Tooling exists, spare parts exist and possibly still in production. Even if restarting the F-22 would be 80% new, that is still better than starting from zero. Any issues that would be applied to restarting the F-22 are more so for a new jet. F-22 line is gone, new jet line never existed. F-22 tooling is stored, new jet tooling doesnt exist. F-22 work force moved on, new jet workforce never existed. A new F-22 would be a small batch, a new jet would be a small batch.

Modifying the F-35 avionics to work in the F-22 is hard and expensive, but creating new avionics is even harder and more expensive, and most likely will be based on the F-35 avionics anyways.

The USAF is spending large sums of money to bring the F-22 into being just compatible with the F-35, and it will still be a patched together solution.


IMO

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: oykie
Posted 2016-05-01 11:42:00 and read 563 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 163):
That is just the reason I suggested the below. A M2.5 top speed would be pretty irrelevant but an ability to supercruise around M1.5-1.7 would be advantageous

I think this could be an option, but what about maneuverability? As you say A2A maybe its weakest point. That being said, a pilot from my hometown, that has flown both the F-16, as well as the F-35, says the F-35 is superior when compared to the F-16. But maybe not like the - king F-22. Maybe 2 engines with thrust vectoring nozzles could work on an F-35XL?   

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 164):
Very high top speeds are extremely irrelevant.

The NORAD flights seems to fly very fast when they need to intercept aircrafts. The F-15 are often used in these kinds of missions. In Norway the F-16 are often braking the sound barriers over land to intercept Russian planes near our Northern borders. Sometimes they have to replace windows that break on the ground.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 165):
but the F-22 is the king of the skys (as designed)

   We need an air superiority fighter in the future. I have seen the F-22 at airshows and, sometimes it looks like that jet is flying against physical laws. I look forward to see the F-35, but I doubt it will come near what the F-22 is capable of.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-05-01 19:54:28 and read 431 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 167):
Tooling exists,

Not all. They've discovered that they are missing tooling. And having the tooling doesn't mean anything, especially if design changes and reengineering takes place; for example, a particular tool may cut holes in forging of metal that conforms to the design of a particular bulkhead. If the design changes to the aircraft results in changes to where the holes are located in the bulkhead, then the tooling is either totally useless so you are forced to build a new one, or extensively modify the tooling to change where the holes are cut.

And that's assuming that they would intend on building the F-22 the say way they did when the production line was running; you can bet that there would be major changes as to how a new production F-22 would be assembled, which could mean that most of the stored tooling is indeed useless.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 167):
spare parts exist and possibly still in production

Not the important bits, such as the engines and avionics. The issue is that while the F-22 is a very impressive and potent machine, the development of the F-22 held onto obsolete systems and architectures for WAY too long. By the time the F-22 actually went into production, the OEM's for some of those systems were telling the USAF, LM, and Boeing that they were going to discontinue production of those systems in a few years time.

Adding to the problems was that none of the systems used were in anyway related or had any compatibility with other aircraft in the inventory, nor were they easily replaceable and upgradable; the F-22 is a one-off design in many of its key systems, which means that the short production run could not in any way support long term production of those key systems. And because those systems aren't easily up-gradable or substituted, that resulted in production being cut short.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-05-01 22:03:21 and read 393 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 156):
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22

The F-35 also has a longer range, more diverse selection of weapons, more advanced sensors and significantly improved sensor fusion than the F-22.

I somehow doubt that statement. The whole interview is a bit strange to be honest.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-05-01 23:37:59 and read 362 times.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 170):
I somehow doubt that statement. The whole interview is a bit strange to be honest.

Gen Hostage did make some rather strange claims and certainly had a very specific threat scenario in mind, which he didn't reveal, but it is certainly possible for the F-35 to be stealthier than the F-22. There is 15+ years of newer materials and modelling between the two airframes and the F-35 brings all the lessons learned from the F-22 program.

As for the other claims, all are valid and verifiable.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-05-02 00:11:35 and read 356 times.

But it was always part of the requirement that the F-35 will be less stealthy, because it is available for export. And back in the time when the USAF fought for F-22 funding, they claimed that the F-22 was clearly better. Call me sceptical on this.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2016-05-02 03:09:07 and read 323 times.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 172):
But it was always part of the requirement that the F-35 will be less stealthy, because it is available for export.

Can you show me the requirement that states the F-35 must be less stealthy than the F-22? It doesn't exist, what the F-35 was required to do was bring stealth to the market in a way that was exportable. In this case, the stealth coating is baked into the skin at the time of manufacture and needs little maintenance throughout it's lifetime. The manufacturing technique is almost certainly still classified but exportability is preserved and stealth performance maintained.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 172):
And back in the time when the USAF fought for F-22 funding, they claimed that the F-22 was clearly better. Call me sceptical on this.

Why is it so hard to believe that the F-35 could have a lower RCS? Given within the time frame you are talking about the F-35 was still in development they would have had RCS predictions not accurate measurements. Looks like in the RCS department the F-35 over delivered...

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: seahawk
Posted 2016-05-02 06:10:37 and read 251 times.

Not impossible, but there is one source claiming this, others were l´much less positive on the topic.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/f...-f-35s-radar-evading-tech-4332950/

I´d give the US version the benefit of better coatings, which could make this a reality, but those coatings could be used on a new built F-22 too.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: spudh
Posted 2016-05-02 06:45:08 and read 237 times.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 172):
But it was always part of the requirement that the F-35 will be less stealthy, because it is available for export. And back in the time when the USAF fought for F-22 funding, they claimed that the F-22 was clearly better. Call me sceptical on this.

IMHO, its entirely plausible that the F-35 would have a lower RCS from the front than the F-22 based on 15 years advances in knowledge and single engine layout, but the F-22 could have better all aspect characteristics.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: Oroka
Posted 2016-05-02 06:58:44 and read 232 times.

Quoting oykie (Reply 168):
We need an air superiority fighter in the future. I have seen the F-22 at airshows and, sometimes it looks like that jet is flying against physical laws. I look forward to see the F-35, but I doubt it will come near what the F-22 is capable of.

Im totally pumped, I found out the F-22 Demo team is confirmed for an air show in Canada that I will be attending in sept. I have seen everything the RCAF has a bazillion times, heck I spend 6 weeks at CFB Cold Lake about a kilometer from the flight line. Since the US sequestration a few years back, American gear became very rare, to the point I skipped alot of airshows. Now if they would just sent up a F-35 for publicity purposes...

Quoting oykie (Reply 168):
Maybe 2 engines with thrust vectoring nozzles could work on an F-35XL?   

The F-35XL already exists, just buy those.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 169):
Not the important bits, such as the engines and avionics

I cant imagine that there will never be another F119 built over the life of the F-22. At some point there is always an upgrade to a newer more efficient or reliable engine. Also, the avionics from the F-35 can be whatever shape needed to fit the F-22. It has the space, more so than the F-35.

The USAF wanted a minimum of 381 when the F-35 was being designed, they got less than half, they need 195 jets to fill the gap. A new 6th gen fighter will end up being another white elephant like the F-22 if started from scratch with only 195 ordered, and there is no political will after the F-22 and F-35 to fund a new program. would yet another stealth fighter be better, from lessons learned by the F-22 and F-35 programs? It would. Is there money for that... I dont think there is. The development money for the F-22 and the F-35 is spent... alot of it would still be valid on a upgraded F-22. Heck, they want to be dirty about it, get funding to use a surplus aircraft as a F-35A avionics testbed to mature design and integration... use a EMD F-22 as the surplus aircraft.

My line of work often has me dealing with people who confuse the words 'cant' and 'wont'. Sometimes out of the box thinking is needed. You can engineer any existing idea to any thing with enough time and money, but it takes creativity and new approaches for real advances. You have an amazing airframe with stunted guts, and a average airframe with amazing guts... If the F-22 is fierce now, imagine it on par with a F-35 in avionics?

The USAF should require the B-21 to use F-35 avionics. The biggest part of all that is the coding... and the F-35 is designed to have new software added to its base OS... apps. Using a F119 engine instead of a F135? Install the F119 engine parameters, verify it is working, away you go (yes I know that is over simplified). Stuff shouldnt be done over and over and over.


Im going to drop this either way, debating opinions is as useful as pissing into the wind.

Topic: RE: F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2016-05-02 19:11:40 and read 17 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 176):
I cant imagine that there will never be another F119 built over the life of the F-22.

Better believe it because the factory that built the F119 is GONE. Pratt has already dismantled their tooling to build the F119.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 176):
At some point there is always an upgrade to a newer more efficient or reliable engine.

Unless the engine is an exact drop in replacement, or has the same dimensions, nope.

And don't bring up the F-16; the F-16's alternative engine program was much more of a fluke; GE was already developing a similarly sized engine for the B-1 Lancer that just happened to be available as an alternative engine. If GE wasn't working on such an engine, the F110 engine would not exist period.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 176):
You can engineer any existing idea to any thing with enough time and money, but it takes creativity and new approaches for real advances.

Yes, and it will easily cost at least $20 billion dollars under a very conservative estimate. $30-40 billion would be more like it. There are plenty of things the USAF would want over spending $30-40 billion on more F-22's, such as expediting F-35 production, upgrades to the existing fleet, LRB, nuclear weapon modernization, replacement of the UH-1N's in nuclear missile silo defence, T-X, etc.

There is this thing called opportunity cost. Given finite resources, the USAF must make choices as to how its limited budget is going to be allocated. The F-22 was an extremely expensive fighter to begin with, and USAF is riding a large bow wave of aircraft that either need modernization or replacement right now. The USAF would like a fighter to replace the F-22, but that's decades down the line. The USAF has time to think about it and refine their requirements while waiting for the technology to mature.

The USAF has already come out said to stop wasting time and money on thinking about a F-22 restart. Why don't we just listen to what the generals have to say?


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/