Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-22 Raptor Revival?  
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 15316 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 


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 15314 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.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15216 times:

Nothing more than election talk.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 15109 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.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 15009 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.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 14983 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.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 14845 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...



User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 902 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14771 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.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11947 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 14763 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.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14722 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.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14689 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]


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14471 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.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14208 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.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14167 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.


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14157 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



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 902 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14090 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.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14091 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.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14086 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.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13914 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.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 902 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13903 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.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13880 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.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13846 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.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15499 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13837 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.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13047 posts, RR: 78
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13804 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?


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 13760 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.


25 Revelation : 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 sa
26 ebj1248650 : 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 airplan
27 Post contains links and images Acheron : You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing. And help pay the debt, lol.
28 Oroka : 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
29 Post contains images mffoda : It's the same A/C as seen in earlier photo's... Nothing new to see here, please move along.
30 Post contains links and images Oroka : No its not, it is a smaller jet, here is a pic that surfaced today. The J-20 does not have stabilator or rudders.
31 wacopolumbo : 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
32 Post contains links ThePointblank : 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 c
33 wacopolumbo : 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
34 Post contains links ThePointblank : 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 y
35 wacopolumbo : 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
36 Powerslide : This is based on your experience flying the F35? REAL F35 pilots say otherwise.....
37 sovietjet : 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 effec
38 Powerslide : 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 pilo
39 ThePointblank : Considering that the USAF, the USMC, and the USN, in the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Requirements Document has instead placed F-16-like performa
40 wacopolumbo : 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 b
41 cargotanker : Please keep posting and don't let the snarky comments from the uninformed wannabees dissuade you. Your posts are more more informative and relevant t
42 Powerslide : 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
43 connies4ever : You;'d be including yourself in that population ? Once again, military programs and purchases, approvals and budgeting, are the purview of the civili
44 Powerslide : Somewhat. 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
45 Post contains images connies4ever : Like the F-35, one might suppose.
46 wacopolumbo : 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 USA
47 Post contains images sovietjet : No other 5th gen fighters that would be POLITICALLY available to F-35 buyers
48 BigJKU : 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 fu
49 Powerslide : Not really, the F-35 was chosen by the Military, not a civy.
50 connies4ever : The Brits don't fly them anymore because they can't afford to, not because they don't want to. Your above quote uses a very broad brush - "Canadians"
51 wacopolumbo : 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 t
52 ThePointblank : 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
53 sweair : 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
54 BigJKU : 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
55 Powerslide : Just what Canada needs, a $250 million dollar air superiority fighter with poor reliability tooling around in the frozen Arctic. Ground radar is in p
56 wacopolumbo : The maintenance pains don't deal with coatings on the panels themselves.[Edited 2012-10-05 07:21:08]
57 wacopolumbo : 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 mis
58 sovietjet : Long lead tools do not take 2 years to make. That's ridiculous. Says who? Define maneuverability. I'm interested to see what stats are being used to
59 Post contains images connies4ever : 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 genera
60 Powerslide : I don't think that anyone who supports the F-35 thinks that. I sure hope it is, considering they spent all those Billions developing the thing as one
61 BMI727 : It would have been Japan, Australia, and then maybe Israel and a couple other wealthy Middle Eastern countries. There's nothing wrong with having a p
62 ThePointblank : 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
63 connies4ever : 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. Which is w
64 ThePointblank : 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. I will point out that
65 Post contains images sweair : 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 tha
66 Post contains links oykie : 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
67 Oroka : 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 majorit
68 sweair : From like 3 or 4000 aircraft to 182 F22 and some hundred F35s.. Quite the reduction for US Airforce?!
69 Powerslide : Reduction in numbers but an increase in capability. The days of 1000+ fleet of aircraft for the US is coming to an end.
70 sweair : 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
71 BigJKU : 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
72 Powerslide : The UK, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Singapore and now Japan all disagree. If the Gripen is such a great f
73 FBWless : Anyone? Try South Africa, Thailand and Czech R & Hungary as leases. Switzerland and Croatia are close to deals. Add to this the political influen
74 ThePointblank : 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 developm
75 wvsuperhornet : 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 po
76 BMI727 : 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 th
77 sovietjet : Isn't the F-15 fleet now limited to M1.6? If you think America has too few planes then you should really take a closer look at Russia's air force. Th
78 ThePointblank : Pretty much... cracks and metal fatigue have taken their toll on the F-15 fleet. Indeed. Not enough airfields in China to launch that many aircraft c
79 BMI727 : 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
80 ThePointblank : 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 h
81 BMI727 : 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
82 ThePointblank : 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
83 BMI727 : You mean the ones the F-35 should have wiped out on the first day of the war? A-10s don't work and get shot at from a long way away. There isn't much
84 sweair : 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 pla
85 Revelation : Indeed, but: so I think they have skin in the game. Adapt or die. Find a new challenge, like building a high capability UAV at a significantly lower
86 connies4ever : 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 anal
87 BMI727 : I was talking about the A-10, but my thoughts on the A-12 are pretty well established at this point.
88 Post contains links BigJKU : 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...h
89 Post contains images Powerslide : Stopped reading after that. Overall, I find it laughable that civilians are putting in their regarding CAS and other military matters. You are not th
90 ThePointblank : It has been argued that at best these companies will be parts suppliers to larger OEM's across the pond. While you can eliminated a good chunk of ene
91 Post contains images connies4ever : 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 of
92 Post contains images oykie : 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
93 Powerslide : Doesn't make a difference, Obama will win.
94 sweair : 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 g
95 HaveBlue : You don't know that, and it'd be much better not have any superfluous political rhetoric in this thread... from either side.
96 Oroka : 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 a
97 wvsuperhornet : 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 th
98 checksixx : 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.
99 Oroka : 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
100 Powerslide : 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
101 neutronstar73 : 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
102 Oroka : 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
103 FSXJunkie : 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
104 Powerslide : This means nothing in the real world. When was the last time a fighter needed to break Mach 1 in areal combat? That is what the F35 has over its pred
105 ThePointblank : 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
106 BigJKU : 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
107 Oroka : 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 on
108 ThePointblank : 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F/A-22 Raptor Now F-22A Raptor posted Wed Dec 14 2005 05:15:14 by N328KF
F-22 Raptor Crashes At Nellis AFB posted Tue Dec 21 2004 05:14:16 by Wmupilot
Photo Op: F/A-22 Raptor At BFI... posted Thu May 13 2004 17:05:56 by Ulfinator
A Two Seat F/A-22 Raptor? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 04:03:33 by CX747
F-22 Strike Raptor? posted Sun May 19 2002 18:44:56 by J.mo
Red Flag Raptor Vs. Typhoon posted Thu Aug 2 2012 06:29:38 by wingman
Second Crash Of A V-22 In 3 Month posted Fri Jun 15 2012 05:04:50 by oldeuropean
New Restrictions For F-22 posted Tue May 15 2012 14:29:18 by moose135
F-22 Pilots Ask For Reassignment posted Mon Apr 30 2012 14:08:59 by rc135x
F-22'S With In 200 Miles Of Iran! posted Fri Apr 27 2012 20:47:14 by Thumper

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format