Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
889091 wrote:But the F-16 outliving the F-22? Is it a numbers thing, considering the low number of Raptors in active service now?
VMCA787 wrote:As good as the F22 is, it really makes sense to retire the fleet. First of all, the fleet is too small, the MR figures are right around 50% and it is facing a major avionics upgrade in the not too distant future, very limited role in missions it suitable for and finally, the $/FH is sky-high. All those factors taken into consideration make it a very expensive proposition to keep around. The ANG might see an F-22 in their inventory for a short period of time, but it won't be for the long term. The NGAD and the F-35 will become the mainstay of the USAF fighter community.
RJMAZ wrote:
This doesn't even take into account NGAD. I expect multiple squadrons in service by 2030. Complete secrecy to avoid uneducated social media commentary.
kitplane01 wrote:RJMAZ wrote:
This doesn't even take into account NGAD. I expect multiple squadrons in service by 2030. Complete secrecy to avoid uneducated social media commentary.
What American fighter has gone from no prototype to multiple squadrons in 8 years.
kitplane01 wrote:Also, are you sure you’re pro democracy?
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:RJMAZ wrote:
This doesn't even take into account NGAD. I expect multiple squadrons in service by 2030. Complete secrecy to avoid uneducated social media commentary.
What American fighter has gone from no prototype to multiple squadrons in 8 years.
No prototype? NGAD flew last year. So 2030 is 10 years after the first flight which is plenty of time.
RJMAZ wrote:The first F-15 first flew in 1972 and it was in service 4 years later in 1976. By 1982, 10 years after the first flight there were over 500 F-15's in service.
The YF-16 prototype first flew in 1974. The production F-16 entered service in 1978. 10 years later in 1984 there were around 500 F-16's in service.
I can name dozens more. The Hornet, Super Hornet and Gripen are all single service fighters that had multiple squadrons after 10 years of the first flight.
The F-22 is really the only counter argument where a single service fighter took a long time to enter service. All the flaws will come out after it has been retired and people will understand why production stopped so quickly.
The F-35 and Eurofighter can't be used as examples of long development durations for the NGAD program. They are the first multi service, multi national fighters and in the case of the F-35 it was 3 different aircraft.
kitplane01 wrote:Also, are you sure you’re pro democracy?
N328KF wrote:What about the possibility that USAF just wants to retire the platform because they have something better in mind and aren't showing all of their cards?
RJMAZ wrote:
The F-35 and Eurofighter can't be used as examples of long development durations for the NGAD program. They are the first multi service, multi national fighters and in the case of the F-35 it was 3 different aircraft.
LightningZ71 wrote:Not only that, but, with that same laptop, you could drive a 3d printer and an auto lathe and have a scale,
checksixx wrote:"Various allies have expressed interest in buying the plane, but U.S. law prohibits its export." 100% False. There is no law in place that prevented export of the F-22. In fact, Japan was nearly a customer, but chose to allocate the money to fund an export variant to the F-35 procurement.
Japan, Israel and Australia have shown interest in buying the supersonic, radar-evading F-22 Raptor, designed to destroy enemy air defenses in the first days of any conflict and clear the way for other missions.
Foreign sales were banned by a 1998 law aimed at protecting the “stealth” technology and other high-tech features said to have made the F-22 too good for money to buy.
mxaxai wrote:checksixx wrote:"Various allies have expressed interest in buying the plane, but U.S. law prohibits its export." 100% False. There is no law in place that prevented export of the F-22. In fact, Japan was nearly a customer, but chose to allocate the money to fund an export variant to the F-35 procurement.
This article would suggest otherwise https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arms ... JU20090910Japan, Israel and Australia have shown interest in buying the supersonic, radar-evading F-22 Raptor, designed to destroy enemy air defenses in the first days of any conflict and clear the way for other missions.
Foreign sales were banned by a 1998 law aimed at protecting the “stealth” technology and other high-tech features said to have made the F-22 too good for money to buy.
I suppose Japan could have received some end-of-the-line aircraft but at that point the F-35 was a more sensible choice.
mxaxai wrote:checksixx wrote:"Various allies have expressed interest in buying the plane, but U.S. law prohibits its export." 100% False. There is no law in place that prevented export of the F-22. In fact, Japan was nearly a customer, but chose to allocate the money to fund an export variant to the F-35 procurement.
This article would suggest otherwise https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arms ... JU20090910Japan, Israel and Australia have shown interest in buying the supersonic, radar-evading F-22 Raptor, designed to destroy enemy air defenses in the first days of any conflict and clear the way for other missions.
Foreign sales were banned by a 1998 law aimed at protecting the “stealth” technology and other high-tech features said to have made the F-22 too good for money to buy.
I suppose Japan could have received some end-of-the-line aircraft but at that point the F-35 was a more sensible choice.
checksixx wrote:There is no law that prevented export of the F-22.
mxaxai wrote:checksixx wrote:There is no law that prevented export of the F-22.
Making exports prohibitively expensive prevents them just as effectively as an explicit ban. Considering how superior the F-22 is said to be, for what other reason would potential allied customers choose not to buy.