F-22 production ends at 187, F-35 production accelerated

[SpudmanWP]

In fighters without a helmet mounted curing system (JHMCS) the AIM-9 seeker is cued onto the target by a radar track.

In the F-35, the HOBS missiles (AIM-9X and AIM-120D) can be cued using the DAS alone. The pilot does not need to crank his head around to pick a target.

Development is going on now on the F-22's MLD to give it DAS-like ability to detect and track airborne targets in a 360 globe around the F-22.

 

[lantinian]

Two video with interesting points For and Against buying more F-22s
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/04/the-f-22-debate-sestak-vs-cham.html

If I had to chose between more F-22s and less but more upgraded ones, I'd definitely pick the later.

 

[LowObservable]

"In fighters without a helmet mounted curing system (JHMCS) the AIM-9 seeker is cued onto anything in the near vicinity by a radar track."

FTFY

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Oh, I just thought you had to uncage the seeker and let 'er rip.

 

[Spring]

Well regarding the "stealth" effectiveness, lets no forget that were actually planned tests between the B-2's against the AEGIS system

The polemic was between the USAF and the NAVY fighting for funds, when the navy challenged northrop and the B-2's for testing, of course the USAF avoided the test

Then dragging the typical "investments beyong soviet capacities" argument, when both russians and americans had the same radar capacity -actually russians were a bit ahead regarding PESA systems-

Actually the B-2 program was on a pretty bad shape until the GW came as a publicity salvation

The USAF knew their B-2's could not enter the soviet air space happily without a real chance to be intercepted

in all elevations over a variety of terrain. Therefore, Soviet defenders have to defend against. significantly different types of threats from multiple axes attacks during periods of severe disruption and destruction.

Point defenses of isolated targets on water is another issue, according to the Air Force. A carrier group does not have to contend with altitude extremes or terrain masking. "Axes of attack are more predictable and disruption will be less. Line of sight detection range is far greater. So, defense of a high value point naval target allows a higher ratio of investment to insure successful defense."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_n54_v167/ai_n28594289/

And that is why terrain following radars were fit on the B-2s

 

[donnage99]

I think there's some misconception here, spring! Nobody is saying that stealth makes you invincible. If that's the case, we would have seen the f-22 as a flying wing already. What stealth does, is that it gives you the most powerful tool possible (highest chance of survival) out there to penetrate enemy defense system. I think the misconception comes from your oversimplification of the matter. Having a stealth aircraft doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You still have to do planning. There's still the need for careful tactics combining suppression of enemy defense, electronic jamming, standoff weapons, cruise missiles, e-bombs to thin down the enemy, and taking use of the advantages of the terran (as have noted by the very same article you provided, read on that). And now, with stealth, you add a much, much higher chance of success into the mix. Stealth is just a tool, in many tools. However, it is the most powerful tool that mankind can make today that is still vastly superior to the other alternatives.

 

[Lampshade111]

All this PAK-FA talk makes me really wish our stupid country would buy some more F-22s. Update the F-22A with the electronics of the F-35 series, give it the designation F-22C, and build 400 more of them. I currently don't have much faith in the F-35.

I am going to guess the final aircraft will have quite a resembalence to the Flanker family, especially after looking at that badge.

 

[donnage99]

All this PAK-FA talk makes me really wish our stupid country would buy some more F-22s. Update the F-22A with the electronics of the F-35 series, give it the designation F-22C, and build 400 more of them. I currently don't have much faith in the F-35.

If we aren't stuck with 2 wars and money isn't the problem.

On the subject, I do agree that it looks like a 1.44 tail layout. I do think the badge shows the front view, as the bulges above the 2 circles are obviously of the engines that come out on top like that of the yf-23 for lower signature purpose. Still don't answer why the intake depiction is round though.

 

[Lampshade111]

If we aren't stuck with 2 wars and money isn't the problem.

Shutting down production permanently is completely idiotic even if money is tight, yet meanwhile the government is tossing around billions like pocket change. :-[

Back on topic the bottom three photos of this guy's PAK-FA concept art rather match what I envision the fighter to be, seems to match the outline on the patch too. http://www.duler.ru/design.html

 

[donnage99]

If we aren't stuck with 2 wars and money isn't the problem.

Shutting down production permanently is completely idiotic even if money is tight

Does this even make sense? Is this close to the definition of "oxymoron?" Even if we need the money for food, not buying the car with that money is idiotic?

 

[Lampshade111]

If we aren't stuck with 2 wars and money isn't the problem.

Shutting down production permanently is completely idiotic even if money is tight

Does this even make sense? Is this close to the definition of "oxymoron?" Even if we need the money for food, not buying the car with that money is idiotic?

Yes it does make sense, and no it isn't an oxymoron. It is completely idiotic to throw out this opportunity when you consider how we could keep the production line alive with just a handful of airframes a year. Considering how much money the government is wasting in worthless endeavors (just look at half the crap in the stimulus package), we should certainly be able to pay for continued air-superiority.

 

[donnage99]

Yes it does make sense, and no it isn't an oxymoron. It is completely idiotic to throw out this opportunity when you consider how we could keep the production line alive with just a handful of airframes a year. Considering how much money the government is wasting in worthless endeavors (just look at half the crap in the stimulus package), we should certainly be able to pay for continued air-superiority.

Please, don't bring the stimulus package in here. That's economy, we are talking how money is spent within the context of military spending as a whole for this year. Please don't stretch it like that, as it reflect a very oversimplified and misleading comparison. As for a handful airframe a year? Do you realize how much money would be wasted if production line is not at sufficient speed? It's economy 101. Here's a thing, I don't want to give the impression that f-22 is not needed. With the f-35 not fully tested, nor there's any hard proof that it will be on schedule, cutting f-22 is risky. I also recognize the potential of the f-22 to ensure air superiority well into the next 2 decades. However, the argument that is seen mostly on the f-22 is ironic at the least. Arguing that we need f-22 for a "what-if" conflict in the FUTURE when we has to sacrifice that same money to the realistic conflicts that we are facing now. That's like having your family starving while you storing food for the future. Is the f-22 cancellation a sad news? YES! Is it the right choice with the current situation? YES. Sometimes the best choice isn't necessary the perfect one.

 

[Lampshade111]

Yes it does make sense, and no it isn't an oxymoron. It is completely idiotic to throw out this opportunity when you consider how we could keep the production line alive with just a handful of airframes a year. Considering how much money the government is wasting in worthless endeavors (just look at half the crap in the stimulus package), we should certainly be able to pay for continued air-superiority.

Please, don't bring the stimulus package in here. That's economy, we are talking how money is spent within the context of military spending as a whole for this year. Please don't stretch it like that, as it reflect a very oversimplified and misleading comparison. As for a handful airframe a year? Do you realize how much money would be wasted if production line is not at sufficient speed? It's economy 101. Here's a thing, I don't want to give the impression that f-22 is not needed. With the f-35 not fully tested, nor there's any hard proof that it will be on schedule, cutting f-22 is risky. I also recognize the potential of the f-22 to ensure air superiority well into the next 2 decades. However, the argument that is seen mostly on the f-22 is ironic at the least. Arguing that we need f-22 for a "what-if" conflict in the FUTURE when we has to sacrifice that same money to the realistic conflicts that we are facing now. That's like having your family starving while you storing food for the future. Is the f-22 cancellation a sad news? YES! Is it the right choice with the current situation? YES. Sometimes the best choice isn't necessary the perfect one.

Yet the economy does get involved, especially since war supplement bills are supposedly being included in the base budget now. There are countless idiotic things draining money that could continue production. Regarding how the money is spent, we shouldn't be spending anything less on defense than we do as a % of the GDP. We should just be working towards getting as much as possible out of that money. Yes the F-22 has had a long and troubled history, but now that it is finally ready we shouldn't throw out 20 years of R&D. We should take this opportunity to fully replace our air-superiority F-15 fleet which will have to be done sooner or later.

Even though we are fighting COIN conflicts currently, we cannot jeopardize our ability to fight conventional wars. Yes we need to be mass producing armor kits, IED jammers, and equipment that is needed at the moment. Yet at the same time we still need to be developing and producing F-22s, submarines, and ships even if it is at a slower rate. NO it is not the right choice with the current situation. The F-15E production line was maintained for a time by producing just 3 aircraft a year! We can certainly afford that, regardless of what the politicians who killed production say.

 

[Matej]

If the USAF buy at least one Silent Eagle, because it will not have any adequate replacement for old F-15s (that must stay in service because the F-22 line is closed), it will make the smile on my face for a loooooooong time. There are not enough numbers of F-22 to defend domestic territory and in the same time doing the job in Japan, South Korea, perspective in Taiwan and other places. Any benefit from export sales is lost forever.

Well, USAF will loose its position. It is the natural process, the same, that happend to Russian air force in late 80s/early 90s. As LowObservable pointed out earlier, definitely closing the alternatives, when you don't have any proven solution is at least very risky. It is funny that nearly the same situation already happend with the strategic bombers: B-2 line closed, B-1 numbers reduced from 90 to 60, the point, when the new painting on B-52s doesn't make them airworthy again is very close, regional bomber initiative cancelled, Long Range Strike frozen... In 2025 there will be almost nothing to fly with. Even the much funny is that there also is the Boeing. This time not with the Silent Eagle, but with the B-1R. Seems that USAF wants old good times back

 

[donnage99]

Yet the economy does get involved, especially since war supplement bills are supposedly being included in the base budget now. There are countless idiotic things draining money that could continue production. Regarding how the money is spent, we shouldn't be spending anything less on defense than we do as a % of the GDP.

Well, that's a whole different story than. I don't want to stretch it there, because it would demand the endless debate over what are being wasted in the stimulus plan that really doesn't have much to do with aviation.

Even though we are fighting COIN conflicts currently, we cannot jeopardize our ability to fight conventional wars. Yes we need to be mass producing armor kits, IED jammers, and equipment that is needed at the moment. Yet at the same time we still need to be developing and producing F-22s, submarines, and ships even if it is at a slower rate.

Life is so much easier in words, isn't it? Would I even argue if we had that kind of money to both adequately equip the needs right now while maintaining our conventional war capabilities at full potential? Unlike words, the fact is that f-22 production was sacrificing many needs that our men and women in service need right now. And choosing between compromising a far-fetch hypothetical scenario with compromising the need of our real life conflicts that our miltiary facing today, I'll choose the latter, thank you.

NO it is not the right choice with the current situation. The F-15E production line was maintained for a time by producing just 3 aircraft a year! We can certainly afford that, regardless of what the politicians who killed production say.

You realized you comparing cat and dog, right? Imagine paying hundred of the highest paying job engineers in the country while spending money to maitain some of the most expensive facilities and equipments just so these engineers could go there and have tea because production line isn't going fast enough.

 

[sferrin]

Shutting down the F-22 line is utterly moronic. Any idea how long it would take to design and put into production another top end fighter when (not if) we figure out "hey, ya know, shutting down the F-22 line was pretty f--king stupid"? Cash for Clunkers (a Liberal, feel-good program designed to buy votes that actually accomplishes very little else) could have paid for another year of full production for the F-22 and a small fraction of the gargantuan cluster--ck the left is trying to slide into the pig trough could pay for an additional five or six years of production. If we have the kind of money to fling around on that and bailing out banks, car companies, and so forth (much of which was also to buy the Democrats more votes) we can certainly afford a few more years of F-22 production. It's a drop in the bucket by comparision. Obviously we can't afford EVERYTHING but national defense is FAR more important than taking money out of the pockets of ants and using it to buy grasshopper votes. (Google ant and grasshopper if you are unfamiliar with the concept.) In short- closing down F-22 production is moronic, we have the money it's just being used irresponsibly by the Democrates to purchase votes instead of using it for what it was intended for.

 

[bobbymike]

sferrin - Here, Here!! It is unbelievable to me that they shut down F-22 production. IMO it is all part of a larger "post-super power" America. In general terms what makes the US a super power; the ability to project power, missile defense and the nuclear deterrent. What is being cut or eliminated? Wait til the QDR and the Nuclear Posture Review. My prediction is the QDR will call for fewer carriers and the NPR will affirm the 1000 to 1600 warheads/500 to 1000 launchers plus no RRW, no modernized nuclear production facilities and no R&D on advanced concepts. Of course the corollary is that the documents will be kind of "hawkish" but will be ignored. That will give the Democrats cover to pretend they are for a strong national defense.

 

[Stargazer]

I am not a specialist in military procurement, but here is my "two cent", as they say...
Considering the F-22 "won" over the F-23, but that the latter design has been prefered for the "FB-23" derivative, doesn't it mean the USAF recognized in the end which of the two was the superior design? With FB-23s and F-35s in the inventory, not only Lockheed and Northrop both get their fair share of the pie, but also the USAF gets two really different and complementary aircraft instead of two similar designs (not to mention that the F-22 didn't have much over the F-35).

 

[Rosdivan]

You know, I'm not seeing why a whole bunch more Raptors is the most beneficial use of DoD dollars. I'd rather see the USAF spend it on more tankers/transports/UAVs or the Navy get it and operate larger air wings/address the fighter shortfall. Army and Marines I'm sure have their own pressing priorities.

 

[GTX]

Here we go again

We get the point - you don't like the F-35, you don't like the current US Administration! PLEASE TAKE THIS DISCUSSION ELSEWHERE AS IT DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS SITE!!!!!

 

[Lampshade111]

Life is so much easier in words, isn't it? Would I even argue if we had that kind of money to both adequately equip the needs right now while maintaining our conventional war capabilities at full potential? Unlike words, the fact is that f-22 production was sacrificing many needs that our men and women in service need right now. And choosing between compromising a far-fetch hypothetical scenario with compromising the need of our real life conflicts that our miltiary facing today, I'll choose the latter, thank you.

F-22 production was sacrificing many needs? Like what? There was tons of funding directed towards giving our troops in the ground what they need now. Most of the problem there is not a lack of funding, but waste and red-tape that needs to be eliminated. There was certainly the money for the F-22, and even if there wasn't, there were programs that deserved to be sacrificed before the F-22. Gates and company just happened to have a bit of a grudge.

You realized you comparing cat and dog, right? Imagine paying hundred of the highest paying job engineers in the country while spending money to maitain some of the most expensive facilities and equipments just so these engineers could go there and have tea because production line isn't going fast enough.

It is not efficient, but we did it with the F-15E and it is a far more ideal solution than shutting the line down completely.

Sferrin and Bobbymike, I agree completely with you. Current "needs" need to be given priority (new tankers, COIN stuff, etc.) yet that does not mean we should cease production and development of systems that could well be needed in the future. The production line for the Raptor could be maintained by a handful of airframes a year that we could have certainly afforded. We need to get more out of our $ when it comes to defense spending, but that doesn't mean we should be spending less overall, or put an end to a once troubled program that is now delivering results. At this rate there is no way in hell that the USAF will be able to get their future strategic bomber.

Look at the past decade, Comanche, Crusader, F-22A production cut, MGV, LCS, DDG-1000, and so forth. It is a disgrace. Yes, many of these programs encountered problems all too common and costly in the defense industry. Yet the solution is not to "cancel or cut everything."

 

[donnage99]

F-22 production was sacrificing many needs? Like what? There was tons of funding directed towards giving our troops in the ground what they need now. Most of the problem there is not a lack of funding, but waste and red-tape that needs to be eliminated. There was certainly the money for the F-22, and even if there wasn't, there were programs that deserved to be sacrificed before the F-22.

According to Gates (he's a liar, I know : ) and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhNNG8u2FoI&feature=related
As for other programs (beside the 50 programs that Gates also cut along with f-22) that needed sacrifice before f-22, care to elaborate them?

Gates and company just happened to have a bit of a grudge.

Please, enough with the baseless conspiracy stuff. Based on what fact do you say that Gates or company (what company I have no idea) has a grudge?

It is not efficient, but we did it with the F-15E and it is a far more ideal solution than shutting the line down completely.

Again, you comparing cat and dog. The f-15E production is completely different from f-22 in its foundation.

Current "needs" need to be given priority (new tankers, COIN stuff, etc.) yet that does not mean we should cease production and development of systems that could well be needed in the future.

But it DOES mean that we have to make that painful choice. We don't have unlimited amount of money. Please wake up to the painful reality of life.

The production line for the Raptor could be maintained by a handful of airframes a year that we could have certainly afforded. We need to get more out of our $ when it comes to defense spending, but that doesn't mean we should be spending less overall, or put an end to a once troubled program that is now delivering results.

The cancellation of f-22 isn't about its troubled history, it's about we need that money for something else that we need now:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-60318.aspx

Look at the past decade, Comanche, Crusader, F-22A production cut, MGV, LCS, DDG-1000, and so forth. It is a disgrace. Yes, many of these programs encountered problems all too common and costly in the defense industry. Yet the solution is not to "cancel or cut everything."

This statement just show a lack of understand in the nature of these programs and why the cut to begin with.

 

[AeroFranz]

Keeping a production line open (and a secure one at that) means more than paying the bills for a building and the salary for engineers sitting around having crumpets and tea (BTW, i volunteer for the job); there are also the famed 1,000 subcontractors in 40 different states. Should we also have those make a dozen parts a year?

 

[bobbymike]

I have nothing against the F-35 and I defy you to find one post where I criticise the plane. I have pointed out that it is not an air superiority fighter and cannot fly as fast or as high as the F-22. Is that being "against" or is it just the truth. I am FOR more F-22s that is my policy. Also I am against the Obama administrations "policies" just like I criticised Bush 43 and come to think of it Bush 41 and his sec def Cheney and Clinton for cutting too deeply at the end of the Cold War. You see I am a consistant "hawk" I do not care who is in office.

As for the embedded video of Mr. Stoltz, a former Army Officer against the F-22 I AM SHOCKED!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have pointed out that it is not an air superiority fighter and cannot fly as fast or as high as the F-22. Is that being "against" or is it just the truth.

It’s not the truth. I can't attribute with certainty your motivations for making such a statement but ignorance is probably the most likely cause.

The F-35 is an air superiority fighter. It is designed to perform a range of missions that create air superiority. Including offensive counter air and tactical and strategic suppression/destruction of enemy air defences.

It will perform these missions on aggregate better than any other strike fighter; including the F-22A which lacks the sensors and weapons integration to perform high level SEAD/DEAD and strike against an adaptive foe. The F-35 won’t be able to cover as much sky as the F-22 in some tactical situations so two F-35s will be needed for each F-22 in these situations. But considering the disparate recurring and non-recurring costs of the two platforms the two to one difference will be more than compensated for.

Reams and reams of propaganda has been produced against the F-35 and in favour of the F-22 for a range of reasons. Mostly associated with a lot of people wanting to keep their current jobs and/or make more money. Those without a financial stake are usually misguided as to the performance capabilities of the two platforms and mistakenly believe that the short range speed advantage of the F-22 is somehow hugely significant.

The idea that the USA is somehow ‘post superpower’ and shutting down the F-22 production line means they are going to lose their air capability edge is laughable. Within the reasonably foreseeable future out to the year 2020 the USA will have the only production line running for a fifth generation fighter (the F-35 at over 100 units per annum) not to mention the only production lines for electronic attack platforms, high end UCAS and mass production of precision guided weapons. There is nothing in this world and the next that can challenge this level of capability.

 

[Lampshade111]

According to Gates (he's a liar, I know : ) and:

According to Gates? Nearly all of his arguments against the F-22 can be applied to the F-35 as well. He claimed it was an outdated "cold war relic" which is the same term politicians will use to justify killing anything too costly for their tastes.

As for other programs (beside the 50 programs that Gates also cut along with f-22) that needed sacrifice before f-22, care to elaborate them?

Where is that money we are supposedly saving from cutting missile defense, and countless smaller projects supposedly going to? Why should the F-22 have to be sacrificed too? Half of these black programs we are spending billions aren't likely to see the light of day. Hell, how much are we still spending in military aid for other countries?

Please, enough with the baseless conspiracy stuff. Based on what fact do you say that Gates or company (what company I have no idea) has a grudge?

Conspiracy, where did I say it was a conspiracy? It was clear as day that he hated and wanted to kill that program all along. Some say he got that idea from John Young, but honestly I don't know if he gets any personal benefit out of it.

Again, you comparing cat and dog. The f-15E production is completely different from f-22 in its foundation.

Both are high end machines with plenty of subcontractors and complicated machinery required. If it was possible to keep the F-15E production line intact with only a handful of airframes a year (back in the Clinton years no less), It should be possible with the F-22. Sure it is inefficient but it is the better solution.

But it DOES mean that we have to make that painful choice. We don't have unlimited amount of money. Please wake up to the painful reality of life.

Huh? We don't have unlimited money? I guess congress isn't aware of that fact. Perhaps somebody should inform them. :
Money isn't the issue here when it would probably only cost about $1 billion a year. There is certainly room in the defense budget for that.

The cancellation of f-22 isn't about its troubled history, it's about we need that money for something else that we need now:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-60318.aspx

And where is that $1 billion a year needed so badly we must cut production of an aircraft key to the USAF's future? Like I said, some money still has to go towards fancy things, which may not be all that useful for fighting Taliban, but are necessary for continued military superiority.

This statement just show a lack of understand in the nature of these programs and why the cut to begin with.

Oh yes they were all "cold war relics." You know it was "cold war relics" that won us the 1991 Gulf War, and that are provided useful support to our infantry however they can.

The idea that the USA is somehow ‘post superpower’ and shutting down the F-22 production line means they are going to lose their air capability edge is laughable. Within the reasonably foreseeable future out to the year 2020 the USA will have the only production line running for a fifth generation fighter (the F-35 at over 100 units per annum) not to mention the only production lines for electronic attack platforms, high end UCAS and mass production of precision guided weapons. There is nothing in this world and the next that can challenge this level of capability.

A decade down the road we are going to be wondering, weren't we supposed to get 2000 F-35s and all of these nice things? Just look at the trend over the past 18 years and we can expect the same thing. Less aircraft overall, filling roles they weren't designed for. The F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none, and is still years off. We shouldn't be relying on it so much and "putting all of our eggs in one basket."

 

[GTX]

I have to ask - are any of those who are so super supportive of the F-22/anti F-35 actually involved in the Industry and have any basis to talk with authority????

This all starts to sound like enthusiasts talking - the same mentality that constantly bemoans the cancelling of programs such as the TSR.2, the retirement of aircraft like the F-14 or F-111 and so forth. I will put it to people now, that in 50 yrs time when the last F-35 is retired people will be there complaining that whatever replaces it won't ever do as good a job as the "Battle Budgie".

Greg

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I will put it to people now, that in 50 yrs time when the last F-35 is retired people will be there complaining that whatever replaces it won't ever do as good a job as the "Battle Budgie".

You can guarantee it because said replacement will either be a blue skinned alien on the back of a flying lizard controlled by a wheelchair rugby reject (James Cameron) or an unmanned air vehicle (reality). Either way lots of people will no doubt be pissed for a variety of perception based emotional reasons.

PS I don’t think anyone who has seen the F-35 would call it a ‘budgie’, it is big; tubby in fact. Perhaps representing the increasing corpulent nature of western society. So maybe it should be called the “Supersized Viper”?

 

[GTX]

PS I don’t think anyone who has seen the F-35 would call it a ‘budgie’, it is big; tubby in fact. Perhaps representing the increasing corpulent nature of western society. So maybe it should be called the “Supersized Viper”?

I know - having seen them "in the flesh" you could say - I just like the nickname "Battle Budgie"

Regards,

Greg

 

[donnage99]

I'm tired with the emotional, out of context and oversimplified statements that have little content in statistics and facts leading to the debate going no where but beating up a dead horse. Believe what you want to believe, I will excuse me from this tiresome and rather irritating (for the fact that I feel like me dedicating to my analysis with as much logic and facts go to waste against something that as GTX put it, enthusiast talking) debate.

 

[bobbymike]

Abraham Gubler stated - It’s not the truth. I can't attribute with certainty your motivations for making such a statement but ignorance is probably the most likely cause.

Yes I erred, my point was that the F-35 is not primarily an air superiority fighter nor will it perform the mission as well as the F-22. Or are all those studies showing much higher kill ratios in air to air combat compared to the F-35 just ignorant like me

 

[Lampshade111]

Or are all those studies showing much higher kill ratios in air to air combat compared to the F-35 just ignorant like me

As were those "emotional" USAF requirements before heads starting being bashed. Seems the "halt production" crowd is unwilling to accept any sort of compromise that would continue the fighter in low rate production or allow production to be resumed at a later date.

 

[donnage99]

I myself find it laughable that people who seem to speak english perfectly seem to lack the ability to understand it. NO body here is denying the capabilities of the f-22. We saying canceling f-22 does not make us lose our air superiority. They aren't making higher kill ratios as much as f-22 doesn't mean they aren't adequate against potential enemies in their projected life time. We aren't making the f-35 to fight f-22. It's laughably delusional to think we would. If Russia isn't as strong as the Soviet back then, when they could engineered and produce a same peer competitor anymore. Russia is now 2 decades behind in stealth technology, its industrial bases are in ruin filled with obsolete equipments. China won't reach the level of our capabilities for the next 40 years with the most positive outlook for china.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes I erred, my point was that the F-35 is not primarily an air superiority fighter nor will it perform the mission as well as the F-22. Or are all those studies showing much higher kill ratios in air to air combat compared to the F-35 just ignorant like me

This has a lot to do with the F-22A carrying more air to air missiles on board than the F-35A Block III (8 vs 4). It’s pretty hard to get more kills when you run out of the means. However the F-35A Block III is not the end of the F-35. With new internal stores to make use of much of the F-35A's bomb bay volume later blocks can be expected by 2020 to be carrying up to eight internal missiles (AMRAAM, JDRADM, etc). In which case the disparate kill ratios is shrunk. Of course the planned utilisation of two F-35s in place of one F-22 in air to air engagements - and the in service numbers to make this possible - also reduce the disparate kill ratios. With the newer blocks these two F-35s will be carrying twice the number of air to air missiles as the single F-22 so be able to kill twice the number of boogies.

It’s possible to make a reasonable semantic argument that if the F-22 and the F-35 were frozen in time circa 2015 and encased in some kind of air combat version of Circus Maximus and only allowed to battle enemies by themselves that the F-22 would destroy FLANKERs at a faster rate. However in the real world the F-35 squadrons will be just as good at producing air superiority for their users as the F-22.

 

[Lampshade111]

I myself find it laughable that people who seem to speak english perfectly seem to lack the ability to understand it. NO body here is denying the capabilities of the f-22. We saying canceling f-22 does not make us lose our air superiority. They aren't making higher kill ratios as much as f-22 doesn't mean they aren't adequate against potential enemies in their projected life time. We aren't making the f-35 to fight f-22. It's laughably delusional to think we would. If Russia isn't as strong as the Soviet back then, when they could engineered and produce a same peer competitor anymore. Russia is now 2 decades behind in stealth technology, its industrial bases are in ruin filled with obsolete equipments. China won't reach the level of our capabilities for the next 40 years with the most positive outlook for china.

Nobody is saying we are going to lose air-superiority in the tomorrow. Yet we can't possible know what the world will look like 15 years from now. I fear you may be underestimating the Chinese, yet even if you aren't look at their talent of reverse engineering equipment. Sooner or later they could well get their hands on some of the F-35's technology.

We should have a ratio of F-22s and F-35s comparable to that of F-15s and F-16s. Not a handful of F-22s with no further production and F-35s. Even in these times it is a stupid decision when you look at what else the government is spending billions on. Yet apparently cutting back missile defense and many other programs wasn't enough.

 

[bobbymike]

Let's go point by point (Abraham Grubler followed by me)

AG - This has a lot to do with the F-22A carrying more air to air missiles on board than the F-35A Block III (8 vs 4). It’s pretty hard to get more kills when you run out of the means. With new internal stores to make use of much of the F-35A's bomb bay volume later blocks can be expected by 2020 to be carrying up to eight internal missiles (AMRAAM, JDRADM, etc). In which case the disparate kill ratios is shrunk. Of course the planned utilisation of two F-35s in place of one F-22 in air to air engagements - and the in service numbers to make this possible - also reduce the disparate kill ratios. With the newer blocks these two F-35s will be carrying twice the number of air to air missiles as the single F-22 so be able to kill twice the number of boogies.

BM - So my main counter points would be let's hope nothing happens until 2020 (and there are no delays in production or cost overruns or problems converting the weapons bay) so we can wait for a "potential" capability as opposed to one coming off the assembly line today. So they will use two F-35s, hmmmm, interesting. I also notice a distinct lack of discussion about stealth, operating altitude, maneuverability (especially if you run out of weapons or as an F-35 test pilot said "we will just exit the fight" tough to produce air superiority that way), one vs two engines or super cruise.

AG - It’s possible to make a reasonable semantic argument that if the F-22 and the F-35 were frozen in time circa 2015 and encased in some kind of air combat version of Circus Maximus and only allowed to battle enemies by themselves that the F-22 would destroy FLANKERs at a faster rate. However in the real world the F-35 squadrons will be just as good at producing air superiority for their users as the F-22.

BM - So it appears you are allowing all sorts of time for the F-35 to mature past 2015 but are in fact freezing the F-22s capabilities, exactly what you said we shouldn't do.

But to repeat until I am blue in the face I want more F-22s and FULL production of F-35s and have always wanted that. The proponents of the F-35 if hypothetically you could get more F-22s with NO negative impact on F-35 would you? If your answer is yes then we are on different sides of the same coin but essentially in agreement.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So my main counter points would be let's hope nothing happens until 2020 (and there are no delays in production or cost overruns or problems converting the weapons bay) so we can wait for a "potential" capability as opposed to one coming off the assembly line today.

Not at all. The F-35 is not going to be in an air to air engagement with the F-22 between 2015-20. If it goes up against a FLANKER or so and so the F-35 will shoot it down. If it goes up against four FLANKERs the F-35 will shoot all of them down and disengage at will (if there are more). Post 2020-25 when there might (emphasis on the might) be something more dangerous than a FLANKER in the air the later blocks of F-35s will have more missiles so it can engage at higher ratios of numbers (8 to 1) and not have to worry about disengaging without having shoot down all the boogies.

So they will use two F-35s, hmmmm, interesting. I also notice a distinct lack of discussion about stealth, operating altitude, maneuverability (especially if you run out of weapons or as an F-35 test pilot said "we will just exit the fight" tough to produce air superiority that way), one vs two engines or super cruise.

I’m not here to explain all the capabilities of the F-35 to you. If you don’t know about it then why engage in this discussion.

One needs to assume a range of deliberate falsehoods about the F-35 and the F-22 to maintain this fictional argument that the F-35 is no good in air to air. It’s got a ultra snesitive radar, IRST, the first designed for full spherical engagement system, VLO (-30 decibels people! That’s fricken tiny), first full data fused cockpit, etc, etc. How is the creaky aluminium FLANKER with big engines and wings, compromised missile seekers, etc, etc going to do anything other than die when it goes head to head with this.

 

[bobbymike]

I just don't get it! Talk about the strawman argument. No where have I said that the F-35 is "no good" at air to air nor am I anti-F-35 yet the proponents of the system keep inferring that proponents of F-22 are saying this.

I will ask again - Hypothetically, if the US could buy more F-22s WITH NO IMPACT on the F-35 would you want them?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No where have I said that the F-35 is "no good" at air to air nor am I anti-F-35 yet the proponents of the system keep inferring that proponents of F-22 are saying this.

Saying an aircraft isn't an air superiority fighter is pretty much an accusation that it is "no good" at air to air. What else am I meant to deduce from this statement?

I have pointed out that it is not an air superiority fighter

I will ask again - Hypothetically, if the US could buy more F-22s WITH NO IMPACT on the F-35 would you want them?

Don't misguide yourself to believe that anyone and everyone posting on this forum is obligated to answer your questions or even respond to every point you make. Since you seem to believe that my failure to answer your hypothetical is some kind of failure to engage in debate over F-22 vs F-35 rather than just not bothering with something I think is immaterial to the discussion... here you go:

If the US Government was to somehow acquire a multi billion windfall that could only be spent on a currently in production air combat project – say Bill Gates gets whacked out on cough medicine while watching the 'Right Stuff' and donates $40 billion to US fighter projects – I would actually invest it all in the F-35 rather than keep the F-22 production line open. Because this investment would provide more platforms (530 vs 220) able to perform a wider range of missions.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic locked. It seems this issue is too emotive for rational discussion.