Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Arguments for 750 Raptors are unconnected to any plausible reality remotely related to how events actually played out.
Even 350 or 500 Raptors would have meant no F-35 and US forces having to, into the future, make do with “warmed up” later variants of F-16s, Super Hornets and Harriers II’s. Leaving their combat aircraft fleets looking significantly more outdated and vulnerable than they currently do.

I’m a fan of the F-22, and in my own rather potentially unrealistic scenario it’s a pity that another 40 - 60 were not built so to increase the numbers of the fleet that were more readily sustainable over the longer term, to give a bit more critical mass and reduce the significance of the early blocks.

But hundreds more F-22s (more than 600 more?) would have left you with a very resource intensive fleet of relatively inflexible airframes re: different roles they could undertake, and not at all well matched to the tasks and combat that the US airforce has actually found itself undertaking since the real-world decisions were made to curtail the F-22 production run. And as mentioned above the cost of that fleet would have a very significant negative impact on the quality of the rest of the US combat aircraft fleets (airforce, Navy and Marines).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elysium said:
This is an incredibly cheeky and flamebait statement, but what do you think about the opinion that the F-22 is not a very good aircraft?
And I don't mean to base it on some sort of hidden internet rumors or 'analysis' articles of sketchy military news websites, but on the fact of how the US has employed (or didn't employ) the plane.
It's bragging rights are based on the statement that the mere presence of its fearsome capabilities have prevented its opponents from acting, which is an unfalsifiable statement.
Despite the fact that the US has been at constant war against a variety of opponents during the plane's entire existence, its only air to air kill have been a slow moving high altitude balloon. For every other theather, opponent, from low tech to high, from small to big, the US has elected to use a different platform. That signals to me, that there's nothing that the F-22 does the best or in the most cost effective manner.
The fact that the US has procured and used a billion planes of various types, including heavily upgraded F-15s, its direct predecessor, and Congress has decided to cancel the project quite early signal to me, that military experts didn't see enough potential in the plane to justify its pricetag.

Yeah, it's basically a cliche to describe Congress as a bunch of bumbling morons, but I'm pretty sure the people who are literally in charge of spending untold billions of dollars of money, and determine the future of the aerospace industry of the US have much deeper reasoning and expert opinion on their side, in contrast to internet commenters who'd like to see more of their cool plane.
Click to expand...

What impressive air to air kills do other fifth gen fighters have exactly?

Also keep in mind that the F-22 is the pioneer in its generation. Of course there are things that could be improved because it is the first to eat the crab, so to speak. I guess if a legit complaint can be made it is the fact that the fuselage is so compact that there is not a lot of space for upgrades.
 
Elysium said:
Despite the fact that the US has been at constant war against a variety of opponents during the plane's entire existence, its only air to air kill have been a slow moving high altitude balloon. For every other theather, opponent, from low tech to high, from small to big, the US has elected to use a different platform. That signals to me, that there's nothing that the F-22 does the best or in the most cost effective manner.
Click to expand...
In one of my previous jobs, I had to drill holes in houses' walls to install stuff.
I had several different kind of drill bits, but mostly used a couple only, since the majority of the time I had to drill into tiles.

The first drill bit of this couple costed me around 3€, lasted me about a dozen times before breaking apart and drilled through 90% of the tiles I had to deal with.
The second of these drill bits costed me 21€, never broke under any circumstance and could put a hole easily into any surface.
But it did wear down with use though and if I used it everyday, after a couple of weeks only, I would have had to go back to the store and buy a new one.
A new one that would have costed me 7 times more than the cheaper one of the 2.
So it was better for me, to have a bunch of these cheaper drill bits available at all times (more cost effective, right?) and only 2 of the expensive bits to use when the situation required it (because the more cost effective ones would not have been able to drill those harder tiles).
I needed both.

Elysium said:
The fact that the US has procured and used a billion planes of various types, including heavily upgraded F-15s, its direct predecessor, and Congress has decided to cancel the project quite early signal to me, that military experts didn't see enough potential in the plane to justify its pricetag.
Click to expand...
Politicians (Congress) are not military experts.
We didn't see the full run of F-22s or B-2s, because the world in which these platforms were conceived to be used had changed as they were being put into production.
You might surmise that there is no reason to have a 21€ drill bit if all the tiles I'm going to find in front of me are gonna be easy to drill through, right?
So there is no reason to buy all those Raptors if I don't see my former opponents as enemies anymore (end of the Cold War).
Unfortunately, this was absolutely myopic make-believe thinking from the people that were called to take these decisions, as reality turned out to be.
Just because you think yourself (or wish to be seen) not as an enemy by someone, doesn't mean that they are not going to see you as an existential threat to their way of life.
They have their own reasons to do so and might not be willing to compromise.
But I digress and I will not dwell further or respond to people that might want to drag me into a discussion about this point.

To go back to this statement:
For every other theather, opponent, from low tech to high, from small to big, the US has elected to use a different platform.
Click to expand...
There is another good reason they are not being used every time and everywhere.
You might have noticed that F-22s, F-35s and F-117s have flown with Lüneburg lenses installed on them during deployments: it's because you don't want to telegraph your opponent your capabilities.
This goes for RCS, sensors, manoeuvrability or anything else.
So the less you use something out in the open for everybody to see, the closer you stick your cards to your chest, the less your opponents will know about how to defeat you.
 
Elysium said:
Despite the fact that the US has been at constant war against a variety of opponents during the plane's entire existence, its only air to air kill have been a slow moving high altitude balloon. For every other theather, opponent, from low tech to high, from small to big, the US has elected to use a different platform.
Click to expand...
This just isn't accurate.

First, opportunities for air-to-air kills have been very limited and the small numbers of F-22s mean it isn't available everywhere. Since F-22 IOC in 2005, I can find only a few air-to-air kills by US aircraft at all, and only one vs a manned aircraft. (Super Hornet vs Su-22). So, there haven't been a lot of opportunities.

The F-22 has been deployed in the Persian Gulf region off and on since 2009 and the Iranians have definitely not been happy about that (Raptors have intercepted Iranian aircraft on numerous occasions).

Raptors flew extensive strike ops in Syria back in 2014 onward, while also doing CAP and electronic surveillance (the last being largely unrecognized but incredibly valuable). Just last year we sent a unit to the Middle East specifically to make a point to the Russians over Syria and it seems to have had the intended effect. Some were also sent to Saudi to help with Houthi cruise missiles, but the results have been held extremely close so it's hard to tell.
 
FighterJock said:
Let's see what happens to the NGAD order once it enters production, I think that they should not repeat the same mistake again.
Click to expand...
The USAF is talking about 200 or so manned NGADs.

Which I'm actually okay with, as the eventual goal with the CCAs is to have one manned plane in the entire strike package. A dozen or so aircraft, with only one of them manned.
 
It will certainly be interesting to see how many CCAs that the USAF orders along with the 200 manned NGADs Scott Kenny.
 
I feel the argument of not building more Raptors is irrelevant now. Sure I'd like more to have been built, but at this point the first Raptors are entering retirement soon and a new platform. Its safe to say that Raptors completed their mission of Air supremacy with the fleet they had. It didn't matter if 180 or 750 were built, they only shot down a balloon. Would have been a lot of funding taken from other projects such as NGAD and B21.
 
raptor82 said:
THAT pod ：

https://twitter.com/x/status/1724464916071907556
View: https://twitter.com/autrey_kevin/status/1724464916071907556?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg
Click to expand...
What's interesting is that the pod doesn't appear to have a transparent front window. Perhaps these would have CNI or EW functions?

Regarding discussions of the F-22's production curtailment, it's important to note that it reached production status at a time when the US was chiefly focused on counterinsurgency in the Middle East, for which the F-22 wasn't optimized for. You can blame much of the funding cuts on high-end systems on former SecDef Rumsfeld and Gates. The ending of the F-22 production has much more to do with bad timing rather than qualities of the aircraft itself.
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
What's interesting is that the pod doesn't appear to have a transparent front window. Perhaps these would have CNI or EW functions?
Click to expand...

From the pictures of that one F-22 with two pods, it is possible that only one of them is an EO system and the other is some sort of EW/EA system. Or a data link/gateway.
 
I think that because the f-22 is the first stealth air superiority fighter, it might have been limited by the technology available; the air force might realize that they can do even better these days with a new design. Even with the incredible performance it has shown, it’s technology might be limited. Maintenance could be a limiting factor for the raptor.
 
Obviously. The question is why? Some new feature in the cockpit that they need to conceal?
 
Tool_Shed_Toker said:
There as a raptor test pilot interviewed on the "Fighter pilot podcast", an excellent podcast BTW, that stated that a HMD was considered but the canopy is too small to accommodate and would interfere with the ejection seat.

Podcast for anyone interested
Click to expand...

That's always been the word. But in 2022, they did put out a SBIR solicitation for an interface with the Scorpion HMD. And the F-22 has been testing the next-gen helmet. Maybe they've found a way to make it all fit.

www.airandspaceforces.com

USAF Looks to Small Businesses for Some F-22 Upgrades | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force is looking for a host of F-22 Raptor upgrades and will seek small businesses to offer potential solutions.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

theaviationist.com

Next Generation Helmet Tested By F-22 Raptor Pilots

Raptor pilots are now testing a new type of flight helmet. The U.S. Air Force is finally testing a new helmet design for fixed wing pilots, developed
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com
 
TomS said:
That's always been the word. But in 2022, they did put out a SBIR solicitation for an interface with the Scorpion HMD. And the F-22 has been testing the next-gen helmet. Maybe they've found a way to make it all fit.

www.airandspaceforces.com

USAF Looks to Small Businesses for Some F-22 Upgrades | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force is looking for a host of F-22 Raptor upgrades and will seek small businesses to offer potential solutions.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

theaviationist.com

Next Generation Helmet Tested By F-22 Raptor Pilots

Raptor pilots are now testing a new type of flight helmet. The U.S. Air Force is finally testing a new helmet design for fixed wing pilots, developed
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com
Click to expand...
That's awesome news! Hopefully it works out, F22 with F35 helmet and DAS system would be an amazing combo.
 
Tool_Shed_Toker said:
That's awesome news! Hopefully it works out, F22 with F35 helmet and DAS system would be an amazing combo.
Click to expand...

The Next-Generation Fixed-Wing Helmet System is not the F-35 helmet. Neither is Scorpion.

But this is an interesting page:

Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems – Thales Defense & Security, Inc.

www.thalesdsi.com www.thalesdsi.com

Visionix‘s Scorpion system is in full-rate production under multiple commercial OEM productions contracts and current US Government contracts and currently flies on the following aircraft:

  • A-10 Thunderbolt (USAF)’
  • F-16 Viper (USAF)
  • F-18 (Spanish Air Force)
  • AC-130W Dragon Spear (USAF)
  • AT-6 (Hawker-Beechcraft/Lockheed Martin)
  • F-22
  • OV-10
  • UH-60/S-70
  • MD530G
  • H125M
  • H145M
  • H225
Click to expand...
 
I mean the logical argument is that B-2 and F-22 should have been cancelled at the end of the Cold War, and the monies saved invested responsibly into developing improved fifth-generation and sixth-generation fighter aircraft and bombers more suitable for the Pacific theater in the mid-2000s (or otherwise used to improve America's overall defense industrial base)...

Or perhaps they would have just spent more money on the War on Terror and corn subsidies. Who knows?
 
Last edited:
chimeric oncogene said:
I mean the logical argument is that B-2 and F-22 should have been cancelled at the end of the Cold War, and the monies saved invested responsibly into developing improved fifth-generation and sixth-generation fighter aircraft and bombers more suitable for the Pacific theater in the mid-2000s (or otherwise used to improve America's overall defense industrial base)...

Or perhaps they would have just spent more money on the War on Terror and biofuel subsidies. Who knows?
Click to expand...
Had 9-11 not happened, it's likely that the F-35 would have drug out even longer than it did.

As to biofuel subsidies, imagine a carrier being able to make enough fuel onboard to keep the E2 and a pair of CAP fighters up 24/7.
 
TomcatViP said:
That's a lot of piss and French fries (cooking oil) for anyone...
Click to expand...

The actual synthesis process proposed was dissolved carbon dioxide in seawater plus hydrogen produced via electrolysis to create hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropf. It's very energy-intensive though and even the full output of the carrier's reactors only gives you a fraction of the full airwing's needs.
 
TomS said:
The actual synthesis process proposed was dissolved carbon dioxide in seawater plus hydrogen produced via electrolysis to create hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropf. It's very energy-intensive though and even the full output of the carrier's reactors only gives you a fraction of the full airwing's needs.
Click to expand...
Right. But it could keep your basic self-protection aircraft up, which greatly reduces the amount of fuel you need to UNREP every Sunday.
 
Wow, there's a solution in search of a problem.

TLDR: "New munitions may have new interface standards, so rather than change the Stores Management System OFP, we'll add a translator module to the bombrack, and the SMS can send out the instructions in legacy format"

It'll work in some situations, but not for something that adds a parameter the legacy formats can't handle, and even where it works, now you have to update all of the translator modules, rather than just the Stores Management OFP when a new munition comes along, because each weapon needs an individual configuration file.

I'm fairly sure it's just plain missing (or deliberately ignoring) the need to preserve a cockpit-SMS-rack messaging loop (think of EO-guided weapons such as Maverick as a basic example, you need to get that EO image to the cockpit so the pilot can pick his target and transmit that to the weapon), you can define a new weapon with new interface protocols, but if the cockpit system doesn't know what to do with them, then you need to update the cockpit software, and at that point you need to update the SMS as well.

I also can't see any reason this translator module needs to be part of the rack rather than the SMS, other than that the patentees probably make bomb racks. If anything putting it in the SMS rather than the rack will keep extra wiring (update hardware) and extra things to go wrong out of the weapons bay, which strikes me as preferable. And you're still going to need the exact same number of test flights to confirm the new weapon can be released safely.

I've totally abused existing standards to do things they were never meant to do in the past, but I was quite clear to everyone involved that we would be better off using an updated standard if it was practical. (And I never did it on flight software).
 
DWG said:
Wow, there's a solution in search of a problem.

TLDR: "New munitions may have new interface standards, so rather than change the Stores Management System OFP, we'll add a translator module to the bombrack, and the SMS can send out the instructions in legacy format"

It'll work in some situations, but not for something that adds a parameter the legacy formats can't handle, and even where it works, now you have to update all of the translator modules, rather than just the Stores Management OFP when a new munition comes along, because each weapon needs an individual configuration file.
Click to expand...
About the only place I can see that being useful is right now in Ukraine, where you need something to translate NATO weapons to "think in Russian"... (and of course other similar situations)

A limited number of weapons, and what should be a pretty short term deployment of <5 years before the jets using the non-NATO SMS get used up and replaced with stuff that does natively talk to NATO stores.


DWG said:
I've totally abused existing standards to do things they were never meant to do in the past, but I was quite clear to everyone involved that we would be better off using an updated standard if it was practical. (And I never did it on flight software).
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to bet even the big guys have severely abused existing standards on flight software before.
 
Scott Kenny said:
About the only place I can see that being useful is right now in Ukraine, where you need something to translate NATO weapons to "think in Russian"... (and of course other similar situations)
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable thought, doubly so in that you'd probably need to completely reverse engineer the Russian SMS to work out what it does and how it does it before you could update it.
 
In the F-22 tour video, the uninstalled engine is a YF119 from the Dem-Val flight test program, with a nozzle and turbine exhaust configuration quite different from the production F119.

The airframe is EMD ship 3, which was the highly instrumented flight sciences aircraft used to validate the airframe stresses throughout the flight envelope during Edwards flight test. The engine nozzles are the Initial Flight Release (IFR) F119 configuration. The divergent flap is different, but the basic construction of the nozzle is close to the production configuration.
 
I always liked the light grey EMD colored raptor better then the production colored one.
 
Same here F-2, quite why they changed the colour scheme before the Raptor entered service is beyond me.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom