Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[Airplane]

Obviously the costs come from increased defense spending. We're already down, what, 20% over the last couple of years? The downward trend cannot continue while maintaining a viable military. Military spending must increase. The costs to restart the F-22 production are tiny to the costs of doing nothing but letting the USAF F-15s and F-16s decompose.

Preaching to the choir. But that doesn't make money appear.

Also, there is nothing wrong anymore with exporting the 22 to friendly nations to share the costs.

Of course there is. All the reasons for not exporting it still apply.

With PakFa and Chinese stealth fighters flying, there isn't much to be learned in a +25 year old aircraft.

Assuming you're correct (almost certainly not the case) why make it easier for them?

Really? The damned thing is 25 year old tech, and its design and engines are even older than that. I kind of think the Russians and Chinese already hit US 1990 technology. Oh and uh, isn't the 35 said to be more advanced and yet we're selling it to the whole damned world, including nations that have sold tech to Russia in the past. No body here seems to be throwing protests over exporting the 35. When was the last time the Aussies ever betrayed us? They were chomping at the bit for the 22.

The Chinese already got loads of info they stole from the 35 and publicly its known they got the exhaust design from the B2.

Make what easier for them? I'm sure their materials and coatings tech has caught up with the late 1980s in the US. Or maybe you mean 25+ year old electronics technology? Or how to program in ADA?

 

[sferrin]

According to this article it looks like one way they maybe seeking to offset costs is to get partner nations involved. I always though the export ban on the F-22 was utterly self-defeating and had a nasty whiff of not even trusting close allies of the US.

When you have Israel selling US tech to China and Japan sending it to Russia, yeah, I'm gonna have to go with "keep it for ourselves".

First I've heard of this what precisely has either nation supposed to have sold?

Patriot and Lavi to China from Israel and Aegis and nuclear submarine screw design from Japan to Russia.

Also as Israel at least is getting the F-35 & in many ways this features more advanced technology I am not sure how this argument really holds up now, especially if they see fit to sell partner nations one but not the other.

There's a reason the F-35 is exportable and the F-22 was not.

 

[NeilChapman]

Depending on how the new Russian and Chinese aircraft develop, the F-35 is piss poor rival, EOTS/MADL included.

I don't know if I'd go that far. But I can't go into the reasons in the F-22 topic ;-)

Pretty much everything in inventory is being upgraded and will continue to be. It just so happens that the F-22 requires upgrades just to meet the design life of 8000 hours.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-raptor-retrofit-to-take-longer-but-availability-hits-414341/

And you're not going to restart building a 25 year old design for myriad reasons.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/solution-americas-f-35-nightmare-why-not-build-more-f-22s-13858

Congress is asking the same questions.

AF just completed and presented a draft of their "2030" requirements to command in the last few weeks. I expect we'll start hearing more leaks about what they want. Expect "presentations" to Congress this time next year for 2018 budget.

So now the AF2030 requirements are starting to trickle out. It seems like the AF has decided that...

1. We can't outproduce (quantity wise) our potential rivals with "traditional" aircraft. It's likely we'll face superior numbers.

2. The AF has explained solutions need to be found for the most difficult A2AD environments - this is where F-X will be necessary as part of a family of systems including B-21 and other sensor platforms

3. They have learned that 20-25 year development cycles to produce a single platform is too long. It seems likely they will fund parallel development of all relevant technologies and "grab them" as necessary to produce the needed solution.


So the next logical question is let's look in our toolkit and see what we can build upon today to meet our needs. We've seen it with the restarted production of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Instead of moving forward with Zumwalt we decided to upgrade ships systems on future Arleigh-Burke hulls to meet the warfare systems requirements. We've seen it with the Virginia payload modules being added to all future Virgina-class submarines to ensure SSGN capability as the Ohio-class SSGN's are retired. So in looking at the AF's requirements perhaps the obvious question would be about restarting F-22 production.

There are myriad stakeholders in this equation; city and state governments looking for production jobs, Boeing and LM for obvious reasons, Congress for the same reasons plus an understanding of the threat environment. The costs of restarting production will be elucidated by the study. What may not be understood is the "lost opportunity cost" and associated risks. But I say that with a caveat. The last line of the proposal to study is "(5) Any others matters that the Secretary deems relevant" - may be added to the study. This is the opportunity for the Secretary to present to Congress the availability and advantages of new airframe designs, technologies and production advances from industry.

There are plenty of us that know many, many reasons not to restart a production line for an aircraft that was designed 30 years ago. I'm sure there are plenty in Congress that understand these reasons well. But Congress is elected. It would be easy for industry and those likely to benefit from a restart to make hay were not this study done. It seems to me that this study is required before the decision to move forward with a new airframe can be publicized.

It seems like the need for additional quantities of an Air Dominance airframes is understood especially given the provocative actions by Russia, China and maybe I'll even include N Korea. I would imagine the Europeans, Japan, S Korea and Taiwan are extremely uneasy with the low numbers of F-22's available. I believe the HASC has already made the decision to move forward with F-X.

The model of B-21 (mature tech w/new airframe) will likely be used for the F-X program. That decision led to the question "how do we accomplish this politically?" That question led to the request for the study. The study is to understand the full fiscal implications of a production restart (which I believe will make no fiscal or operational sense whatsoever) and thus will provide the requisit political cover for a new airframe. It's important to note that the study is to be finished by Jan 1 of next year. This will allow time to let the difficulty and cost of a production restart "set in" and time for the pivot to a new airframe be completed - hopefully for the 2018 budget.

Perhaps I'll be proven wrong. But it seems like the AF acquisition process for B-21 is perceived to be going well...so far. Congress is looking for ways to reduce the acquisition costs of other systems while fixing some of our military shortages, e.g. cutting carrier procurement from 5 to 4 years, taking advantage openings in production schedules due to reduced build times and making the up front expenditures for additional ships.

There seems to be an increased "intensity of understanding" for the shortcomings in our military footing. Fifteen years of war has left us with worn out airframes. I sense that even fiscal hawks are ready to spend what's required to get things in order. Now is the time for industry to be ready for decisions to be made for the F-X program.

If I were NG, LM or Boeing, I'd be working with suppliers to be ready for a Milestone A review in 2018 and production plans by 2021. If I were NG I'd have plans to include F-X in either the B-21 or F-35 production line if that would speed up EMD and LRIP. The Air Force will want to see positive results - quickly - and preparadness will be part of the decision of who gets the contract IMHO.

 

[TomS]

According to this article it looks like one way they maybe seeking to offset costs is to get partner nations involved. I always though the export ban on the F-22 was utterly self-defeating and had a nasty whiff of not even trusting close allies of the US.

When you have Israel selling US tech to China and Japan sending it to Russia, yeah, I'm gonna have to go with "keep it for ourselves".

First I've heard of this what precisely has either nation supposed to have sold?

Also as Israel at least is getting the F-35 & in many ways this features more advanced technology I am not sure how this argument really holds up now, especially if they see fit to sell partner nations one but not the other.

On Japan, presumably it's the Toshiba-Kongsberg CNC machine tool sale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba-Kongsberg_scandal

It has been 30 years now, and none of what they passed was explicitly military technology.

 

[sferrin]

According to this article it looks like one way they maybe seeking to offset costs is to get partner nations involved. I always though the export ban on the F-22 was utterly self-defeating and had a nasty whiff of not even trusting close allies of the US.

When you have Israel selling US tech to China and Japan sending it to Russia, yeah, I'm gonna have to go with "keep it for ourselves".

First I've heard of this what precisely has either nation supposed to have sold?

Also as Israel at least is getting the F-35 & in many ways this features more advanced technology I am not sure how this argument really holds up now, especially if they see fit to sell partner nations one but not the other.

On Japan, presumably it's the Toshiba-Kongsberg CNC machine tool sale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba-Kongsberg_scandal

It has been 30 years now, and none of what they passed was explicitly military technology.

Aegis information. As for the Toshiba CNC sale not being "explicitly military" that's being a bit disingenuous. It was bought with the express purpose of making better submarine propellers- which they did.

 

[starviking]

Aegis information. As for the Toshiba CNC sale not being "explicitly military" that's being a bit disingenuous. It was bought with the express purpose of making better submarine propellers- which they did.

With the AEGIS info leak, there was no strong link to any foreign power - but it did highlight the lax security procedures in Japan. This laxity is largely due to the senior/junior social system here. I recall the initiating incident in the leak involved someone's social senior saying "can you give me the AEGIS data?"

Some info here:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/12/14/national/msdf-officer-held-in-aegis-secrets-leak/#.VxiTHTG8Cp1

 

[sferrin]

Aegis information. As for the Toshiba CNC sale not being "explicitly military" that's being a bit disingenuous. It was bought with the express purpose of making better submarine propellers- which they did.

With the AEGIS info leak, there was no strong link to any foreign power - but it did highlight the lax security procedures in Japan. This laxity is largely due to the senior/junior social system here. I recall the initiating incident in the leak involved someone's social senior saying "can you give me the AEGIS data?"

Some info here:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/12/14/national/msdf-officer-held-in-aegis-secrets-leak/#.VxiTHTG8Cp1

Which is why I'd prefer we kept the F-22 close to the vest. I'm not saying Israel or Japan maliciously gave away data but give it away they did. Can't do that if they don't have it.

 

[Airplane]

Aegis information. As for the Toshiba CNC sale not being "explicitly military" that's being a bit disingenuous. It was bought with the express purpose of making better submarine propellers- which they did.

With the AEGIS info leak, there was no strong link to any foreign power - but it did highlight the lax security procedures in Japan. This laxity is largely due to the senior/junior social system here. I recall the initiating incident in the leak involved someone's social senior saying "can you give me the AEGIS data?"

Some info here:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/12/14/national/msdf-officer-held-in-aegis-secrets-leak/#.VxiTHTG8Cp1

Which is why I'd prefer we kept the F-22 close to the vest. I'm not saying Israel or Japan maliciously gave away data but give it away they did. Can't do that if they don't have it.

OMG, there is no risk in selling the F-22 to the US's allies. Everything hardware/mechanical/electrical on the F-35 is a generation ahead of the F-22 and it's being sold around the globe. Where is the logic in not selling a less advanced asset while your state of the art is going to every corner of the globe? The Russians and Chinese already shot their load with their 3 stealth fighters and if the F-22 were to begin exports in 4 years, it's far, far too late for anything F-22 related to make into those aircraft. By that time the tech is pushing 30 years. Plus add on a few years for reverse engineering... Now you're over 30 years. It's not as if the F-22 is using Tie Fighter technology...........

 

[sferrin]

Aegis information. As for the Toshiba CNC sale not being "explicitly military" that's being a bit disingenuous. It was bought with the express purpose of making better submarine propellers- which they did.

With the AEGIS info leak, there was no strong link to any foreign power - but it did highlight the lax security procedures in Japan. This laxity is largely due to the senior/junior social system here. I recall the initiating incident in the leak involved someone's social senior saying "can you give me the AEGIS data?"

Some info here:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/12/14/national/msdf-officer-held-in-aegis-secrets-leak/#.VxiTHTG8Cp1

Which is why I'd prefer we kept the F-22 close to the vest. I'm not saying Israel or Japan maliciously gave away data but give it away they did. Can't do that if they don't have it.

OMG, there is no risk in selling the F-22 to the US's allies. Everything hardware/mechanical/electrical on the F-35 is a generation ahead of the F-22 and it's being sold around the globe. Where is the logic in not selling a less advanced asset while your state of the art is going to every corner of the globe? The Russians and Chinese already shot their load with their 3 stealth fighters and if the F-22 were to begin exports in 4 years, it's far, far too late for anything F-22 related to make into those aircraft. By that time the tech is pushing 30 years. Plus add on a few years for reverse engineering... Now you're over 30 years. It's not as if the F-22 is using Tie Fighter technology...........

Saying it twice doesn't make it so. There's a reason the F-35 is exportable and the F-22 isn't. You might want to look into why.

 

[Void]

A bit late to be worrying about the Chinese getting their hands on information about the F-22...

 

[sferrin]

A bit late to be worrying about the Chinese getting their hands on information about the F-22...

Doesn't say what they got, how much they got, when they got it. It's certainly not justification for saying, "okay, let's just give them everything".

 

[Void]

While he got something. And it is not like they will stop trying, and in all likelihood they will succeed again. If three hackers can penetrate multiple US defense contractors, including a secure air-gapped Boeing network and pilfer classified information for use in China's weapons programs, well, not much is safe.

Keeping the F-22 out of allied hands and having its secrets compromised anyways by cyber espionage is after all the worst of all possible outcomes. At least if the US sells them there are more to go around should they ever be needed.

 

[Flyaway]

Aegis information. As for the Toshiba CNC sale not being "explicitly military" that's being a bit disingenuous. It was bought with the express purpose of making better submarine propellers- which they did.

With the AEGIS info leak, there was no strong link to any foreign power - but it did highlight the lax security procedures in Japan. This laxity is largely due to the senior/junior social system here. I recall the initiating incident in the leak involved someone's social senior saying "can you give me the AEGIS data?"

Some info here:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/12/14/national/msdf-officer-held-in-aegis-secrets-leak/#.VxiTHTG8Cp1

Which is why I'd prefer we kept the F-22 close to the vest. I'm not saying Israel or Japan maliciously gave away data but give it away they did. Can't do that if they don't have it.

OMG, there is no risk in selling the F-22 to the US's allies. Everything hardware/mechanical/electrical on the F-35 is a generation ahead of the F-22 and it's being sold around the globe. Where is the logic in not selling a less advanced asset while your state of the art is going to every corner of the globe? The Russians and Chinese already shot their load with their 3 stealth fighters and if the F-22 were to begin exports in 4 years, it's far, far too late for anything F-22 related to make into those aircraft. By that time the tech is pushing 30 years. Plus add on a few years for reverse engineering... Now you're over 30 years. It's not as if the F-22 is using Tie Fighter technology...........

Saying it twice doesn't make it so. There's a reason the F-35 is exportable and the F-22 isn't. You might want to look into why.

Oh so you're actually basing your argument on Internet hearsay, you said have said in the first place. :

 

[sferrin]

Oh so you're actually basing your argument on Internet hearsay, you said have said in the first place. :

If you actually believe it's "internet hearsay" you might want to just quit right there. It's pretty much common knowledge that the F-35 was specifically designed to be exportable while the F-22 was not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-arms-usa-congress-idUSTRE5896JU20090910

 

[Triton]

Hopefully, we will be able to read the unclassified report produced “by not later than 1 January 2017.” In the meantime, can we be a little nicer to each other on the forums? A report requested by the US House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces is just that--a report.

 

[marauder2048]

F-35

Oh so you're actually basing your argument on Internet hearsay, you said have said in the first place. :

If you actually believe it's "internet hearsay" you might want to just quit right there. It's pretty much common knowledge that the F-35 was specifically designed to be exportable while the F-22 was not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-arms-usa-congress-idUSTRE5896JU20090910

F-35 grew up with and partially insipired a very different ITAR regime than existed when F-22 hit IOC.

Compliance with the modern ITAR regime is more or less "built in" to the F-35 production line/supply chain but would have to be grafted on (with schedule and cost implications) to
revived F-22 production if exports were seriously contemplated.

 

[Triton]

"Raptor Resurrected: What Will it Take to Restart F-22 Fighter Production?"
Dave Majumdar
April 20, 2016

...the production tooling could be a serious problem. While Lockheed and the Air Force supposedly made every effort to carefully squirrel away the tooling and instructions for building the F-22, problems have emerged when maintenance crews have attempted to pull the equipment in order to repair damaged jets. One recently retired Air Force official with direct knowledge about the service’s efforts to repair two damaged Raptors said that they faced severe difficulties with retrieving the correct tooling.

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 has not been completely resolved. 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.

The second factor to consider is that the Raptor’s avionics were dated even before the jet was declared operational in December 2005. While the Raptor is the most advanced operational warplane in the Air Force’s inventory, its computer architecture dates back to the early 1990s. The core processors run at 25MHz–since it took so long to get the jet from the design phase to production. Moreover, the Raptor’s software is particularly obtuse and difficult to upgrade–which is partly why integrating the AIM-9X and AIM-120D missiles onto the aircraft has been so problematic.

The jet’s avionics would have to be completely revamped for a production restart, not just because they’re obsolete, but also because the jet’s antique processors and other components haven’t been made in decades. That would be a very expensive proposition. However—if the Congress appropriated enough money—the Air Force could piggyback an F-22 upgrade onto the planned effort to implement an open architecture avionics overhaul on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the 2020s. That would allow the Pentagon to take advantage of economies of scale and have commonality between the two types.

Source:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/raptor-resurrected-what-will-it-take-restart-f-22-fighter-15862

 

[Triton]

Text of H.R. 4909—FY17 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL:

F-22 production restart assessment

The committee notes that production of the F-22 fifth-generation tactical aircraft concluded in 2009, and notes 187 aircraft were produced, far short of the initial program objective of 749 aircraft, as well as the Air Combat Command’s stated requirement of 381 aircraft. The committee also understands there has been
interest within the Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense, and Congress in potentially restarting production of the F-22 aircraft. In light of growing threats to U.S. air superiority as a result of adversaries closing the technology gap and increasing demand from allies and partners for high-performance,
multi-role aircraft to meet evolving and worsening global security threats, the committee believes that such proposals are worthy of further exploration.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a comprehensive assessment and study of the costs associated with resuming production of F-22 aircraft and provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than January 1, 2017, on the findings of this assessment. The
committee expects the report to be unclassified, but may contain a classified annex. Further, the committee directs that the assessment and report consider and address the following:

(1) Anticipated future air superiority capacity and capability requirements, based on anticipated near-term and mid-term threat projections, both air and ground; evolving F-22 missions and roles in anti-access/area-denial environments; F-15C retirement plans and service-life extension programs; estimated next-generation
aircraft initial operating capability dates; and estimated end-of-service timelines for existing F-22As;

(2) Estimated costs to restart F-22 production, including the estimated cost of reconstituting the F-22 production line, and the time required to achieve low-rate production; the estimated cost of procuring another 194 F-22 aircraft to meet the requirement for 381 aircraft; and the estimated cost of procuring sufficient F-22 aircraft to meet other requirements or inventory levels that the Secretary may deem necessary to support the National Security Strategy and address emerging threats;

(3) Factors impacting F-22 restart costs, including the availability and suitability of existing F-22A production tooling; the estimated impact on unit and total costs of altering the total buy size and procuring larger and smaller quantities of aircraft; and opportunities for foreign export and partner nation involvement if section 8118 of the Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-56) prohibiting export of the F-22 were repealed;

(4) Historical lessons from past aircraft production restarts; and

(5) Any others matters that the Secretary deems relevant.

Source:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20160420/104831/BILLS-114HR4909ih.pdf

It will be interesting to see the final report prepared by the Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. I wonder if the Secretary of the Air Force will take the opportunity to advocate an improved F-22B and/or an improved F-22B export variant.

 

[sferrin]

I doubt they would export it if only because it could throw the F-35 program into chaos. And chaos is always expensive.

 

[Triton]

I doubt they would export it if only because it could throw the F-35 program into chaos. And chaos is always expensive.

I hadn't heard Japan was cancelling the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin (ATD-X) program in favor of purchasing additional F-35s. So I don't know what you mean by throwing the F-35 program into chaos.

 

[sferrin]

I hadn't heard Japan was cancelling the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin (ATD-X) program in favor of purchasing additional F-35s. So I don't know what you mean by throwing the F-35 program into chaos.

That doesn't even make sense. Why would they cancel an experimental aircraft designed to test technologies for a future aircraft meant for a role not filled by the F-35?

 

[bobbymike]

This may be a silly question but how would this compare to making an A2A twin engine F-35D or would that just be a brand new airplane so might as well develop F-X?

 

[sferrin]

This may be a silly question but how would this compare to making an A2A twin engine F-35D or would that just be a brand new airplane so might as well develop F-X?

How would what compare? The F-22 or Japanese X-2?

 

[bobbymike]

This may be a silly question but how would this compare to making an A2A twin engine F-35D or would that just be a brand new airplane so might as well develop F-X?

How would what compare? The F-22 or Japanese X-2?

Compare cost wise to restarting F-22 production?

 

[sferrin]

This may be a silly question but how would this compare to making an A2A twin engine F-35D or would that just be a brand new airplane so might as well develop F-X?

How would what compare? The F-22 or Japanese X-2?

Compare cost wise to restarting F-22 production?

You wouldn't be getting an F-22, more like a modern Strike Eagle. No supercruise (engines again), airframe optimized for different envelope, etc. A twin engine F-35 would be a new aircraft. Way more expensive than restarting the F-22 line (which wouldn't be cheap either).

 

[NeilChapman]

This may be a silly question but how would this compare to making an A2A twin engine F-35D or would that just be a brand new airplane so might as well develop F-X?

It's not a silly question. That's why congress is asking for the study. But you basically answered your own question.

The answer is..... it depends

It depends...on if you're talking about building "bolt for nut" a replica of the F-22...

You'll be lucky if the tooling is still viable. Just the tooling is 30 years old. Planes aren't built that way anymore. Then you have reverse engineer the manufacturing processes, restart engine production, etc, etc.
The folks that built this plane are long gone.
Just figuring out the the engineering, the tooling, lining up subs, building the line - Billions of $ - just to get started.
I'd guess at least 5Billion but others probably have more insight into this - and this is to figure out what you don't know.

Let's say you're lucky. All the tooling exists (but we already know it doesn't)...Then you say "why build an airframe with 30yo tech?

Now you're talking an EMD phase that's probably another $10 Billion.

Now your at the same cost of designing a new airframe, EMD and getting to LRIP - but you decide to build the F-22 anyway. That's going to take 5-7 years.

It's now 2025 and you've built a new F-22 that was designed in 1985. A 40 year old design that still doesn't have exceptional range.

---

Alternatively...

NG, LM and Boeing (if not others) have all had teams actively working on F-X for several years. The Air Force could follow the same model as B-21, have an RFP in 2017, down select in 2018 and expect IOC by the mid 2020's. This timeframe is in line with the AETP follow-on program which transitions the existing ADAPTIVE engine technology "out of the Air Force Research Laboratory and into the acquisition realm." Now you've got a new design, open architecture (which the F-22 is not) aircraft with mature tech, suitable range, supercruise, designated payload and stealth.

-----

I'm of the mindset that it's going to be very difficult to justify NOT building a new airframe. Especially when you think about all the new tech (flight control, avionics, EWS, manufacturing techniques, possibly new engines, etc.) that has come about in the last 30 years.

But we'll see.

 

[Triton]

I hadn't heard Japan was cancelling the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin (ATD-X) program in favor of purchasing additional F-35s. So I don't know what you mean by throwing the F-35 program into chaos.

That doesn't even make sense. Why would they cancel an experimental aircraft designed to test technologies for a future aircraft meant for a role not filled by the F-35?

I misunderstood your comment about restarted F-22 Raptor production throwing the F-35 program into chaos. I thought that you were referring to reduced foreign sales of the F-35 in favor of the F-22 and thus higher prices for each F-35 because of reduced production.

 

[sferrin]

I thought that you were referring to reduced foreign sales of the F-35 in favor of the F-22 and thus higher prices for each F-35 because of reduced production.

Reduced F-35 sales, and stretched out purchases, which is why your comment made no sense.

 

[Flyaway]

F-35

Oh so you're actually basing your argument on Internet hearsay, you said have said in the first place. :

If you actually believe it's "internet hearsay" you might want to just quit right there. It's pretty much common knowledge that the F-35 was specifically designed to be exportable while the F-22 was not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-arms-usa-congress-idUSTRE5896JU20090910

F-35 grew up with and partially insipired a very different ITAR regime than existed when F-22 hit IOC.

Compliance with the modern ITAR regime is more or less "built in" to the F-35 production line/supply chain but would have to be grafted on (with schedule and cost implications) to
revived F-22 production if exports were seriously contemplated.

Precisely. Especially as in spite of what its detractors would have people believe every part of the F-35 from the radar onwards is more advanced on it compared to the F-35. Hence why any new built F-22 would have to be upgraded with numerous F-35 internals.

 

[Triton]

Precisely. Especially as in spite of what its detractors would have people believe every part of the F-35 from the radar onwards is more advanced on it compared to the F-35. Hence why any new built F-22 would have to be upgraded with numerous F-35 internals.

I think that the decision before the United States Air Force is whether to upgrade and extend the service life of the 254 F-15C Eagle air-superiority fighters in inventory to 2040 as a supplement to the existing 187 F-22A Raptor fighters or build an additional 194 F-22A Raptor fighters and decommission the F-15C fleet. I don't believe that the United States Air Force has the time to wait for the development of a notional F-22B Super Raptor before it is required to either SLEP or replace its F-15Cs.

 

[NeilChapman]

Precisely. Especially as in spite of what its detractors would have people believe every part of the F-35 from the radar onwards is more advanced on it compared to the F-35. Hence why any new built F-22 would have to be upgraded with numerous F-35 internals.

I think that the decision before the United States Air Force is whether to upgrade and extend the service life of the 254 F-15C Eagle air-superiority fighters in inventory to 2040 as a supplement to the existing 187 F-22A Raptor fighters or build an additional 194 F-22A Raptor fighters and decommission the F-15C fleet. I don't believe that the United States Air Force has the time to wait for the development of a notional F-22B Super Raptor before it is required to either SLEP or replace its F-15Cs.

Perhaps that will depend on how quickly a F-22/F-X decision is made. I had a feeling in Feb/Mar that Congress was anxious while watching hearings. The push by Russia/China/NKorea/Iran seems to have them on edge. They're looking for quick solutions. This is why I'm hoping that NG/LM/B have their F-X programs moving rapidly. With a 2018 decision and mature designs we could have a F-22 augmentation airframe in the 2020's.

Is there any documentation that shows the decommissioning rate/years for the F-15C's?

 

[Steve Pace]

Precisely. Especially as in spite of what its detractors would have people believe every part of the F-35 from the radar onwards is more advanced on it compared to the F-35. Hence why any new built F-22 would have to be upgraded with numerous F-35 internals.

I think that the decision before the United States Air Force is whether to upgrade and extend the service life of the 254 F-15C Eagle air-superiority fighters in inventory to 2040 as a supplement to the existing 187 F-22A Raptor fighters or build an additional 194 F-22A Raptor fighters and decommission the F-15C fleet. I don't believe that the United States Air Force has the time to wait for the development of a notional F-22B Super Raptor before it is required to either SLEP or replace its F-15Cs.

The only fighter that can take out an F-15C is an F-22A - I feel the F-15C isn't going anywhere for years to come. -SP

 

[SpudmanWP]

lol, An F-35 would have it for lunch.

 

[quellish]

lol, An F-35 would have it for lunch.

Lunch is coming in the next software update.
We swear.

 

[kaiserd]

Precisely. Especially as in spite of what its detractors would have people believe every part of the F-35 from the radar onwards is more advanced on it compared to the F-35. Hence why any new built F-22 would have to be upgraded with numerous F-35 internals.

I think that the decision before the United States Air Force is whether to upgrade and extend the service life of the 254 F-15C Eagle air-superiority fighters in inventory to 2040 as a supplement to the existing 187 F-22A Raptor fighters or build an additional 194 F-22A Raptor fighters and decommission the F-15C fleet. I don't believe that the United States Air Force has the time to wait for the development of a notional F-22B Super Raptor before it is required to either SLEP or replace its F-15Cs.

I think the consensus is that's not a real choice that the US Airforce can make; you couldn't get more "no change" F-22A quickely and/or not prohibitory expensively, even if you thought this was a good idea.
A 40-60 top-up order before shutting down production would have made a lot of sense in isolation but may have help kill the F35 and ruined efforts to modernise the "mass" of the fighter force.

I'm a fan of the F-22 but the unfortunate truth is that the ship has sailed on more F-22's.
For many good reasons (many mentioned in the contributions above) it would be better to concentrate on a new design; as discussed it could even emerge being nominally based on and looking a lot like a F-22 or twin engines F-35 but it will inevitably be very different than a F-22A in construction, systems, internals etc.

 

[Grey Havoc]

lol, An F-35 would have it for lunch.

Lunch is coming in the next software update.
We swear.

;D

 

[sferrin]

sferrin: "There's a reason the F-35 is exportable and the F-22 isn't. You might want to look into why."

Flyaway: "Internet hearsay"

Marauder2048: "Compliance with the modern ITAR regime is more or less "built in" to the F-35 production line/supply chain but would have to be grafted on (with schedule and cost implications) to revived F-22 production if exports were seriously contemplated."

Flyaway: "Precisely."

 

[mz]

Precisely. Especially as in spite of what its detractors would have people believe every part of the F-35 from the radar onwards is more advanced on it compared to the F-35. Hence why any new built F-22 would have to be upgraded with numerous F-35 internals.

I think that the decision before the United States Air Force is whether to upgrade and extend the service life of the 254 F-15C Eagle air-superiority fighters in inventory to 2040 as a supplement to the existing 187 F-22A Raptor fighters or build an additional 194 F-22A Raptor fighters and decommission the F-15C fleet. I don't believe that the United States Air Force has the time to wait for the development of a notional F-22B Super Raptor before it is required to either SLEP or replace its F-15Cs.

I think the consensus is that's not a real choice that the US Airforce can make; you couldn't get more "no change" F-22A quickely and/or not prohibitory expensively, even if you thought this was a good idea.
A 40-60 top-up order before shutting down production would have made a lot of sense in isolation but may have help kill the F35 and ruined efforts to modernise the "mass" of the fighter force.

I'm a fan of the F-22 but the unfortunate truth is that the ship has sailed on more F-22's.
For many good reasons (many mentioned in the contributions above) it would be better to concentrate on a new design; as discussed it could even emerge being nominally based on and looking a lot like a F-22 or twin engines F-35 but it will inevitably be very different than a F-22A in construction, systems, internals etc.

Everybody just keeps talking how expensive and long lead time all the systems are, and in the next sentence how the F-35 airframe is a compromise, because of length constraints (carrier lifts) and the lift fan (even in the versions that don't have the fan, it affected the design).

So the conclusion is logical: create a new airframe with F-35 systems. As engine you can use F135 or F119 depending on requirement speed range.
You could probably do a lot with just stretching and flattening the F-35, reconfiguring the weapons bays and changing to new inlets optimized for higher speeds.

The F-35 configuration where the weapons bays are below the inlet ducts makes it really thick. Stretch, remove lift fan (and fuel there) and put one big bay in the centerbody instead. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Flickr_-_Official_U.S._Navy_Imagery_-_A_pilot_pilots_the_F-35B_Joint_Strike_Fighter_test_aircraft..jpg

The F-23 had that, and one complaint was that if a weapon gets stuck, the whole deep weapons bay is unusable. In a smaller aircraft however you're not going to have that many weapons anyway.

http://yf-23.net/Pics/Plans/YF-23%20cutaway.jpg

 

[SpudmanWP]

Lunch is coming in the next software update.

Blk 3i can do A2A and it's radar, EOTS, EODAS, ESM, and VLO capabilities work just fine.

3F will just make it better & add more weapons.

No need to wait for an update considering the F-15C has no IRST, has an MSA (getting an update "soon"), etc.

 

[quellish]

Blk 3i can do A2A and it's radar, EOTS, EODAS, ESM, and LO capabilities work just fine.

Fixed that for you.

3F will just make it better & add more weapons.

No need to wait for an update considering the F-15C has no IRST, has an MSA (getting an update "soon"), etc.

Good news! We actually thought we would deliver the Lunch update at 9PM but did not tell anyone. It will now be rolled into Dinner.

The Eating update, however, has been pushed back to next year.